Presidential candidates know that the “press” (that is, print and electronic media) is often a decisive force in American electoral politics and spend much of their time trying to manipulate it for their own benefit. To politicians it is really a personal political matter, and the tendency when they speak about it is to both personalize and over-generalize the decisiveness of its influence. Thus, in 1976, Ted Kennedy stated flatly, “The press made Carter,” whereas Jimmy Carter repeatedly complained of the press's crucial role in “unmaking him” as president.To political scientists the impact of the press, particularly television, is of primarily “systematic” importance rather than of personal interest—except of course, for those who would like to spend some years in Washington as advisor-practitioners. Scholars and students know that television has changed things a lot, but we are not exactly sure how much and what kind of responsibility the press as a whole bears for the substantial institutional changes that have occurred in the last two decades. Let me offer briefly some of the conclusions I have come to after researching, thinking, and writing for some years on this topic. I shall look, first, at what is new about television news compared to the pre-electronic era and, second, how the most significant of these mass communications changes have affected our electoral institutions and the presidency itself.
