Customer Reviews

Crosstalk: Citizens, Candidates, and the Media in a Presidential Campaign (American Politics and Political Economy Series)

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

"Crosstalk" is a useful compilation of academic papers on communications during the presidential campaign of 1992. The foci are on campaign discourse, public, candidate and media agendas, and voting. I characterize this book as "useful," not "compelling," "engaging," or "stimulating" because it is none of those things. It is not a non-fiction version of "Primary Colors," nor is it a campaign journal like "The Making of the President," or any sort of linear story at all. If you are reading this book, there's a good chance it has been assigned in a class, you are doing research or you are a political scientist yourself. If this is the case, "Crosstalk" is certainly the best academic treatment of its subjects that I have come across thus far.

"Crosstalk" is packed with facts, charts, interviews, endnotes and references. It is meticulous in its methodology. Many of the observations about the 1992 election are useful in observing the current (2000) race.

"Crosstalk's" major shortcoming is that it is unnecessarily dry. A campaign is full of anecdotes, has a natural story line, and many dramatic moments. There's no reason, except possible maintaining academic propriety, that the book needs to read like a biological journal. The human element is injected through interviews with voters, but the effect comes across like the voters are specimens. They come off as amusingly ignorant.

But "Crosstalk" is not about narrative. It's about political science. And it serves its purpose well. While "Crosstalk" may not make the short list of political pleasure readings, it should be right up there as a source for academic purposes.