Advertising and Public Relations: The Pretty Package Back in 1960, when the role of advertising and public relations in politics first became apparent, Life magazine quoted one campaign strategist as saying, 'I can elect any person to office if he has $60,000, an IQ of at least 120, and can keep his mouth shut.' Since the 1896 campaign, the election of a President has been determined largely by the ability of information specialists to generate favorable publicity. In recent years that publicity has been supplanted(代替) by heavy spot buying on electronic media. So many factors are involved in choosing a President that it is hard to say with any real empirical confidence how important any single medium is. The most talked-about medium in American politics is television. Highly publicized debates between candidates in 1960, 1976, and 1980 appear to have affected the outcomes. Richard Nixon(the early favorite) would probably not have lost to Kennedy if it were not for his poor showing on TV. Similarly, the 1976 debates probably clinched Jimmy Carter's narrow victory over Gerald Ford, and Ronald Reagan appeared to be the victor in the 1980 debates. Yet there were other elections where, according to political analyst Edward Chester, no amount of TV exposure could have changed the outcome. Goldwater versus Johnson in 1964 and Nixon versus McGovern in 1972, both cases contain overwhelming winning. Television commercials seem to work best in close elections or in those where there is a large undecided vote. According to the Associated Press, Ford's TV spots during the 1976 campaign probably swung over 100,000 undecided voters a clay during the last few months of the campaign. What effect does television have on the candidates themselves? It establishes orders of importance that are different from those of an earlier day. The physical appearance of the candidate is increasingly important. Does he or she look fit, well-rested, secure? Losing candidates like Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey, and Richard Nixon all seemed to look 'bad' on TV. Nixon overcame this problem in 1972 with ads that featured longer shots of him being 'presidential'—flying off to China. Close-ups were avoided. Both John F. Kennedy and Jimmy Carter seemed more at time with the medium, perhaps because both were youthful, informal, and physically active outdoor types. Dwight Eisenhower and Lyndon Johnson seemed to have a paternal, fatherly image on the small screen. All of the recent Presidents have learned how to use the medium to their advantage, to 'stage' events so as to receive maximum favorable coverage. Television has changed the importance of issues. It can be argued that since the 1960 presidential debates we have elected people, not platforms. This is a major departure from earlier years. Franklin Roosevelt's radio charm cannot be denied, but he came to power with great success by one issue—the Great Depression. All the print information we now receive is simpler and more condensed than ever before. Issues and print go together. Television is images, not issues. We develop a more personal, emotional feeling about the candidates. Jimmy Carter's spectacular rise to power was a testament to this new image orientation. No one really knew what he was going to do when he took office, since his entire campaign had been geared toward developing a relationship of trust with the electorate, 'Trust me,' he said. 'I'll never lie to you.' Another example was the election of Reagan in 1980. For some this represented the ultimate television victory. After all, what other country can claim that it has actually elected an actor President? It can be argued that Americans were tired of Carter and that Reagan simply offered an alternative. Yet throughout the campaign he offered us a media 'vision' of a 'shining city on a hill.' And what about h