Political advertising as a resource for citizenship The reception of audiovisual rhetoric Magnus Hoem Iversen Thesis for the Degree of Philosophiae Doctor (PhD) University of Bergen, Norway 2018 Political advertising as a resource for citizenship The reception of audiovisual rhetoric Magnus Hoem Iversen ThesisAvhandling for the for Degree graden of philosophiaePhilosophiae doctorDoctor (ph.d (PhD). ) atved the Universitetet University of i BergenBergen 20182017 DateDato of fordefence: disputas: 14.12.2018 1111 © Copyright Magnus Hoem Iversen The material in this publication is covered by the provisions of the Copyright Act. Year: 2018 Title: Political advertising as a resource for citizenship Name: Magnus Hoem Iversen Print: Skipnes Kommunikasjon / University of Bergen Abstract This thesis explores the reception of audiovisual rhetoric in the form of political advertising. I argue that political ads can function as a resource for citizens. The ads allow people to enact a receptive rhetorical citizenship. They do so by providing substance for everyday practical judgement on issues and political leaders, and through sparking more general discussions on political matters. The thesis contributes empirically by examining receptive dimensions of rhetorical citizenship, which scholars have called for at numerous occasions but not yet fully explored. The thesis contributes theoretically through proposing a way researchers can go about this, including the formulation of four virtues of receptive rhetorical citizenship: inclusiveness, openness, connection and literacy. The thesis combines the traditions of rhetoric and audience studies in a manner that has only rarely been put into play before. The empirical data material revolves around political ads produced for two separate elections in 2013 and 2015. Directing the main thrust of analysis towards reception, the data material consists of 16 focus groups conducted with a range of voters. Taking a holistic approach to the study of audiences, the study also draws on supplementary interviews with 23 ad producers, strategists and politicians, as well as a rhetorical textual analysis of the eight films that were discussed in the groups. Thematically, the eight films produced talk and discussion around three key themes: 1) the balance between informative aspects and entertaining aspects in political ads; 2) negativity in political ads; and 3) personalization in political ads. Lastly, 4), I examine informants’ discussions from the vantage point of reception research in order to further tease out nuances of how citizens use ideals such as authenticity and aptum as evaluative concepts, as well as discuss informant reflexivity and various modes of reception they engaged in. I find that citizens are deeply ambivalent to political ads as a genre, in particular towards the trade-off between informing and entertaining in a communicative text. I find that informants for the most part accepted negativity in political ads, while at the same time attempted to discern between useful and non-useful negativity. Furthermore, I provide nuance and detail to how people use personality as a route to judgement on candidates and other political matters when watching advertisements. Importantly, elements of personalization - ordinariness, authenticity and sociability - are highly at work. Lastly, I provide further detail on what kind of receptive rhetorical citizenship people enact in the interview situation. I propose the concept of breaching moments through authenticity and aptum as a novel way to understand the nuts and bolts of how form and content interacts when people are to evaluate their political leaders on screen. Acknowledgements I cannot in any satisfactory or even meaningful way capture all the experiences of the last four years in words. However, whenever I try, the sentence that pops up is: WHAT A PLEASURE. Thanks are in order; first and foremost to the people have helped me write this thesis: My supervisor Jens E. Kjeldsen, for getting me into rhetoric some eight years ago, and for being a constant inspiration, guiding star and friend ever since. All glory to you. My co-supervisor Hallvard Moe, for being a mentor, a strict reader and a wonderful guide in the world of academia and media studies. A very special thanks to the two other heads of the three-headed troll: Office- mate Eirik Vatnøy (I’m going to clean my desk now, I promise) and frequent partner in crime Erik Knudsen (I’m going to say yes to social calls now, I promise). I have been lucky to work at a department of genuinely positive, curious and helpful people. A big thanks to Helle Sjøvaag for always looking out for the newbies, and being so generous with tips and help. You are a role model. Torgeir Uberg Nærland for the long runs, the conversations, and the running conversations. Ida Andersen, Trygve Svensson , John-Magnus Dahl and the rest of the rhetoric research group: Anders Johansen, Marit Bjøntegård, Maria B. Waade. You are a blast. Thank you for the discussions, and the late evenings. The members of the research group for media use and audience studies. In particular Brita Ytre-Arne for reviewing my thesis halfway through (also a shout out to Frode Guribye). Jan Fredrik Hovden for help with planning the recruitment of focus groups. Dominique Pasquier for thorough and creative feedback at several half-baked- potato-seminars. I had the privilege of spending 6 months in Chicago and Evanston as a visiting researcher. Thank you NORAM and the Faculty of Social Sciences at UiB, for funding me. At Northwestern University, a big thanks to Professor Robert Hariman for hosting me, for coffee and feedback on the project. I am in your debt. Also a big hug to the wonderful grad students at the program for Rhetoric and Public Culture at the School of Communication: Marissa Croft, Lucia Delaini, Kaitlyn Filip, Gabby Garcia, Eric James, Harriette Kevill-Davies, Angela Leone, David Molina, Liam Olson-Mayes, José Luis Quintero Ramírez, Dylan Rollo, James Proszek, LaCharles Ward. Miss you guys! I am grateful for both the feedback I got and the people I met at the ECREA Doctoral Summer School of 2014, in Bremen. Søren Schultz Jørgensen (the original røyskatt), Sara Atanasova, Alexandra Polownikow, Scott Ellis, and all the rest of you. I hope we meet at a conference soon. Also big thanks to Richard Kilborn for editing my book chapter. All the people I’ve met at conferences and other people I have met along the way who have become both friends and sparring partners for ideas and projects: Sonja Shaikh, Bente Kalsnes, Ida Aalen, Eirik Nymark Esperås, Gry Rustad. A huge nod to Bjarte W. Helgesen for proofreading. A deep bow to Dr. Sarah Hoem Iversen for taking the PhD pressure off the rest of the family, proofreading, and knowing exactly when to deliver care packages. Lastly, thank you Kjersti-Lill and Aksel. For perspective, purpose and peace of mind. I love you both. Bergen, June 2018. Contents 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Aims and scope ....................................................................................................................... 4 1.2. Research questions and research design: production, content, reception ................................ 5 1.2.1 Research design ...................................................................................................................... 7 1.2.2 Approach ................................................................................................................................ 8 1.3 Background and context of thesis ................................................................................................ 10 1.4. The structure of the thesis .......................................................................................................... 15 Part I: Theory and method ................................................................................................................. 17 2.0 Theory ............................................................................................................................................ 17 2.1 Rhetoric and reception ................................................................................................................. 17 2.1.1 The rhetorical perspective .................................................................................................... 17 2.1.2. Some key rhetorical concepts .............................................................................................. 19 2.1.3. The common ground between reception research and rhetoric ........................................... 26 2.1.4 Sensitizing encoding-decoding ............................................................................................. 31 2.2 Political advertising and receptive rhetorical citizenship ............................................................ 43 2.2.1 Towards receptive rhetorical citizenship .............................................................................. 43 2.2.2 How to study receptive rhetorical citizenship ...................................................................... 47 2.2.3 The virtues: traces of receptive rhetorical citizenship .......................................................... 51 2.2.4 Political ads as resource and two basic orientations ............................................................. 55 3.0 Method and methodology ............................................................................................................