A study of the consequences of partisan communication on the stability of unified government of the United States.

Ask most Americans, and they'll tell you that presidential campaigns get dirtier and more negative with every election. This text suggests that this may not be as true as we think, and shows that over the last dozen elections, negativity may have been well publicised but hasn't increased.

These days the truth is hard to find. If the press is not beleived-or believable-because politicians have turned the public against it, then the press is not free, and without a free press, there is no democracy. Includes behind the scenes stories about reporters and politicians in conflict, an objective look at the ongoing debate over liberal and conservative bias in the news media, an engaging story of the Internet's positive and negative impact on the reliable flow of information, and a media resource guide to the best sources of objective reporting.

Americans tend to see negative campaign ads as just that: negative. Pundits, journalists, voters, and scholars frequently complain that such ads undermine elections and even democratic government itself. But John G. Geer here takes the opposite stance, arguing that when political candidates attack each other, raising doubts about each other’s views and qualifications, voters—and the democratic process—benefit. In Defense of Negativity, Geer’s study of negative advertising in presidential campaigns from 1960 to 2004, asserts that the proliferating attack ads are far more likely than positive ads to focus on salient political issues, rather than politicians’ personal characteristics. Accordingly, the ads enrich the democratic process, providing voters with relevant and substantial information before they head to the polls. An important and timely contribution to American political discourse, In Defense of Negativity concludes that if we want campaigns to grapple with relevant issues and address real problems, negative ads just might be the solution.

Examination of how attack journalism is undermining our nation's politics.

This second edition of Attack Politics updates Emmett Buell and Lee Sigelman's highly regarded study of negativity in presidential campaigns since 1960 with a substantial new chapter on the 2008 contest between Barack Obama and John McCain. That campaign, the authors contend, proved to be the least negative in the last half century and reinforces their central argument that these campaigns have actually not grown "dirtier" and more negative since the election of JFK. In this new edition, Buell and Sigelman address the same questions that guided their research in the original book. Who attacked whom? How frequently? On what issues? In what ways? And at what point in the race? They also update their analysis of whether presidential campaigns have gotten more negative since 1960, whether opposing sides addressed the same issues or avoided subjects "owned" by the other side, and whether trailing candidates wage more negative campaigns than leading candidates. The authors expand their analysis well beyond their original research base-17,000 campaign statements extracted from nearly 11,000 news items in the New York Times—focusing on both presidential and vice-presidential nominees as sources and targets of attacks and examining the actions of surrogate campaigners. They also compare their findings with previously published accounts of these campaigns—including firsthand accounts by candidates and their confidants. Each chapter features "echoes from the campaign trail" that reflect the invective exchanged by rival campaigns. Their new chapter shows that, rather than neatly resembling either of their typology's extremes ("runaways" or "dead heats"), the 2008 race began as a "dead heat" in late summer but began to take on all the characteristics of a "somewhat competitive" affair by the end of September. Campaign discourse that began with an anticipated focus on the Iraq War and other national security issues came to be dominated by concerns about the economic meltdown. As the campaign headed toward the home stretch, anxiety about the economy seemed to eclipse national security, health care, immigration, and other concerns. This shift of emphasis, they argue, doomed whatever chance McCain had of winning. Like the first edition, this update of Attack Politics systematically analyzes negative campaigning, pinning down much that has previously been speculated on but left unsubstantiated. It offers the best overview yet of modern presidential races and remains must reading for anyone interested in the vagaries of those campaigns.

global challenge and change. Instead of devoting the next year to embracing opportunity amid turmoil, though, the lawmakers waged the worst legislative assault in history against the commonsense safeguards we all depend on to protect our environment and health. In a single calendar year, the Republican-led House voted nearly 200 times to weaken, block, or delay needed measures that defend our air, water, wildlife, and lands. This book tells the story of that misguided campaign, how it put our nation at risk, and where we need to go from here, for the sake of Americans everywhere, for the sake of our children's future.

“Follow the science” is what they said. “Follow our politics” is what they meant. In Panic Attack, nationally bestselling author and physician Nicole Saphier uncovers the hypocrisy and hysteria which has characterized so much of the American pandemic response. While journalists trumpeted the importance of following science to “flatten the curve,” they praised Governors Andrew Cuomo and Phil Murphy, who sanctioned ill-equipped nursing homes to take COVID-positive patients, leading to an enormous death spike for New York and New Jersey. Plus, the old guard medical establishment captured by Dr. Fauci proved to be far too rigid during a health care emergency. While some state legislators are still concealing accurate records of nursing home deaths, many others have made anti-science decisions regarding re-opening plans; all of which fuel distrust and civil unrest. Democrat mayors like Bill de Blasio openly admitted that their decisions to keep schools closed were fueled by a “social contract” with teachers (that is: teachers’ unions), despite hard science saying this would be harmful. When anti-science measures are continuously implemented, the long-term consequences of such actions will likely stay with us for years to come. The pandemic has resulted in a failure of government, much of which is unavoidable in a unique disaster scenario. However, the rampant politicization of science, from the origin of the virus to the simple concept of wearing facemasks, has hopelessly muddied the water, divided the country, and knee-jerk anti-Trumpism made it all worse.

"On January 6 we witnessed what many of us consider a failed insurrection at the US Capitol. But others think this was political violence in service of the preservation of our democracy. When did our political views become extreme? When did guns and violence become a feature of American politics? Nathan Kalmoe and Lily Mason have been researching the increase in radical partisanship in American politics and the associated increasing propensity to support or engage in violence through a series of surveys and survey experiments for several years. Kalmoe and Mason argue that many Americans have become increasingly radical in their identification with their political party and more inclined to view partisans of the other party negatively as people. Their reactions to opposing political views give little room for respect or compromise and make increasing numbers of Americans more likely to either participate in political violence or to view those who do so on behalf of their party favorably. They also find that radical partisans are more apt to be receptive to messages from radical political leaders and less receptive to conflicting information and views. Radical partisanship and political violence are not new to the United States. In most of the 20th century we experienced less radical partisanship, with measures of attitudes towards partisans of other parties that were not as extreme as we see now but this has not been the case throughout much of American history, as witness the fight over slavery that led to the Civil War as well as the violence associated with racism after the fall of reconstruction to the present day"--