002 the Media and California's 1974 Gubernatorial Election Report Draft

The Media and California's 1974 Gubernatorial Election 1°-112 1 1\1 I INTRODUCTION Q. 6 1\t?‘ 31 1''1(43/4i° ;\;) \ 4 \' CONFIDENTIAL: WORKING DRAFT NOT FOR PUBLICATION CR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION @ California Center for Research & Education in Government INTRODUCTION When California Representative Jerome Waldie stepped out of an automobile in August, 1973, at the Mexican border in San Diego county, and began walking north, in a commitment to "walk the state" he signaled, with the most emphatic public gesture anyone had made to date, that the campaign for the choice of a California governor, to occur fifteen months later in November 1974, had commenced. He set off to meet the voters. But the aim in Waldie's walk was not quite that, as he strode up the concrete highways and country roads of California, through shopping centers, college cam- puses and farm clusters, into cities and suburbs, hand out to greet each person encountered, the pleasant grin - Tarm and personal, "My name is Waldie. I hope you'll vote for me for governor," with a little coterie of volunteers flocking behind to thrust a pamphlet at each passerby and gather nam'. This turned out to be the most extensive encounter between candidate and voter of the entire 1974 campaign. For the human satisfaction that came from meeting directly so many People Waldie later said it was worth the whole arduous, plodding, interminable ordeal. "I love this. I don't mean to be effusive, but I really do like the experience. In all my years of politics, I've done what politicians do, talk to people '7 in the power centers. This is different. I see people who have never seen a politician in their lives, literally. Most are delighted. On the street, for that 20 seconds I'm shaking his had and looking at him and saying 'Hi, I'm Jerry Waldie, What's your name?' that is a more honest and direct communication than the voter ever gets-- a more honest communication than the TV screen brings him with a candidate reading something someone wrote for him and which he rehearzed." But Waldie didn't make that walk to meet people. He made it to attract media. In a state with 21 million people, 13.5 million eligible to vote and 9.9 million actually registered to vote in 1974 (and 6.3 million who did vote), personal contact with 10,000 people is a tremendous achievement. Waldie's cam7aign reached that many, -Pith names and ad- dresses collected in his wake as he made his way over 100 1_ miles. No other candidate had anything comparable in the way .-2f personal con*act, though another hopeful, George Moscone, state -senator from San Francisco, did a th:ee-week jeep trip from the Oregon border to the Mexican in November 1973. Neither of these efforts registered significantly with the public, however. For a state so large, with a voting population so numerous, such encounters with people is absolutely inconsequential, just as it would be nationally. The only useful means of communication between candidate and voter today is through mass media systems. At least that was the universal 1974 assumption. Waldie knew it. That is why he walked. As campaign professional Joe Cerrell saw it: "You can ring doorbells for three months. It won't have as much impact as one good television spot." The "Walk" was Waldie's way to get some television attention. It, like the jeep ride, was a gimmick. Following examples set in Illinois and in Florida, the walk dramatized Waldie's entry into each community along his route. It gave focus to his presence, without the necessity for further formal "events". It brought this man, on a human and personal scale, the "peoples' candidate" his slogans emphasized, into successive communities in a deliberately modest style. In such a context he could and did command attention from the local newspapers, the local radio and local television. He rated, in his wake, a continuing ripple of stories and pictures, some cf- the most engaging those which caught him rubbing tir..1,d feel.. with his shoes off. Maybe it wasn't a lot of publicity, 1:—.1t the brief passage through town, he was ne.s; more than that, a very human presence, not a lofty official. And it cost almost nothing. 4. Lacking money, lacking a name familiar uutside his own Congressional district, lacking even that minimal necessity, a press relations staff, Rep. Waldie made an entry upon media awareness by the simple, homely drama of his foot passage. It brought what he sought: a succession of local newspaper attention, a chance to talk on local radio, an occasional interview on local television. But even this small attention didn't happen by chance. Waldie's aides would advance his walk: alert the news reporters, plan timing with the radio station, make sure the television station knew. California's 1974 gubernatorial election demon- strated with peculiar force the reality that modern elections in this country consist not so much in encounters between candidate and voters as in encounters between candidate and media. This engagement between press-television-radio and the man seeking office has become the focal point of a political campaign, the center of its action. This, the Candidate-edia Interaction Study dis- cover....d to an extent far beyond our initial anticipatfon. II In April, 1974 after roughly a year of preliminary discuzsion and planning, the California Center for Re- search and Education in Government undertook a serious analysis of the inter-action between political candi- 5. dates for the governor's post in the California 1974 election and the media of that state as it reported upon that campaign. The study was initiated with the fin- ancial support plus the interest and encouragement of Ford Foundation and John and Mary Markle Foundation. The aim was an empirical observation of just what trans- pires between these two elements of a campaign-- the media and the candidate. What we set out to do was to observe, as intimately as possible but objectively, the whole range of relationships and responses which a campaign provokes between media and candidate. We had no thesis to prove, no initial hypothesis. We undertook this study to identify in more detail than scholars have attempted in the past just what relationships actually ensue between these two vital components of a political campaign, how they are conducted and how they affect each other. After considerable discussion over the most advan- tageous methods, it was decided that, although this constituted a sociological study, journalists with experience in „iulitical coverage would bring a more immediate and more intimate understanding to the task than would academicians. Reporters could mov,,_, into the campaign scene quickly, with a comprehension of what constituted the campaign side of the activities, and they would know first-hand the necessities placed on all elements of the media by such technical problems as deadlines, news judgement, editorial mandates for balance, the daily competition for space or time with other breaking news events. The journalists chosen had the further advantage of knowing personally most of the candidates and the campaign managers. However, those participating had not been engaged recently in day-today political reporting about those who figured as candidates in this contest, and they did not during the campaign. They had been out of such melieu long enough to gain some objectivity, it was felt. A group of recognized scholars in political science and the communication fields from University of California and from Stanford University were participants from the earliest stages in planning the project, and then through its research design, and as consultants in the observation, in the focus of the work and in computer analysis of media output. It must be noted that our study purposely avoided any concern with voter response to the candidates. That area has been and continues to be rich for sociological and political science study. Many of our own findings invite further examination aF to th impact on voters. But we purposely narrowed our own examination to one element in the campaign process only: to the interaction be 4- ween candidates and media. III This particular election, it turned out, was extraordinarily opportune for our study. It was the Ami 7. first wide-open campaign for goveror in California since 1958 when then U.S. Senator William F. Knowland and then Attorney General Edmund G. Brown battled each other, that is, the first with no incumbent seeking re-election. A number of state office holders were involved in this 1974 race. None, however, commanded the initial level of public attention which a U.S. Senator would rate, or an Attorney General (a very powerful office in Cali- fornia since Earl Warren fashioned its scope and activities). Hence, none entered the lists with an obvious advantage, except for the name advantage of Edmund G. Brown Jr., and the right-to-inherit advantage Republican lieutenant governor Ed Reinecke originally enjoyed. Reinecke's lead melted away when he became enmeshed in the Watergate catastrophe. In a broad sense, the press, radio and television saw all candidates leave the start- ing gate even. This very openness attracted a large number of candidates. A total of 29, 18 of them vying for the Democratic nomination in the June primary election; six for the Republican; three for the Peace and Freedom Party, one American Independent. As a result we were able 'co observe many campaign sty10 n- to 9et a perspectiv.-_.

Load more