From Jesse to Arnold
The Framing of America’s Movie Star Governors
Geoffrey D. Sheagley
University of Minnesota, Morris
Introduction
“We shocked the world!” Those are the words of governor elect Jesse Ventura, a
member of the Reform Party, acknowledging he had won Minnesota’s governorship in
1998. Five years later yet another, albeit a more well known, actor in the movie Predator
was elected to his state’s highest executive office. Arnold Schwarzenegger was chosen to
replace former governor Gray Davis in California’s first recall election. They are
America’s celebrity governors. Without question Schwerzenegger and Ventura have
become the most well-known governors of the last decade. While by no means the first
celebrity candidates elected to public office, they are the latest additions to a list that
includes Clint Eastwood, Bill Bradley, and Ronald Reagan.
Jesse Ventura and Arnold Schwarzenegger ran in very different ways, as very
different people, and during very different times. Ventura ran during a period of great
prosperity in Minnesota. There was a four billion-dollar surplus in the state budget and
Minnesota was considered to have one of the highest quality of life ratings in the nation.
Arnold Schwarzenegger, on the other hand, ran with the backing of the Republican Party,
as a recall favorite, during a time of great economic stress in California. If one adopts the
idea of narratives as a crucial part of media’s presentation of candidates and other news
this implies that the media coverage of these candidates should have differed in story
focus as well as candidate portrayal (Norris, Kern and Just 2003, Mann 1999). Were
there concepts that transcended these vast differences and if so what do they mean?
The era of celebrity politics is today. Celebrities are some of the most well known
members of our mass media driven and entertainment obsessed society. As Darrel M.
West and John Orman contend in their book Celebrity Politics, “star power is weighted
1
more heavily than traditional political skills such as bargaining, compromise, and
experience” (West and Orman 2003). When celebrities enter the political world,
celebrity politics ensue. Given the ability of the media to influence the electorate, as
demonstrated by previous scholars, as well as the possible additional power that celebrity
candidates are granted two questions are raised: first, what were the frames used by the
media in their coverage of Jesse Ventura and Arnold Schwarzenegger? The second
question has two parts. Was there a relationship between the frames used to portray
Ventura and Schwarzenegger and what are the differences, if any, between the frames
used? Previous research on celebrity politics, framing, and candidates was used to form a
foundation for the research conducted on the news coverage of Jesse Ventura and Arnold
Schwarzenegger.
Previous Research
Celebrity Politics
The impact celebrities have on the political process cannot be underestimated.
There are five categories in which celebrities involved in politics can be placed: political
news worthies, legacies, famed nonpoliticos (elected officials), famed nonpoliticos
(lobbyists and spokespersons), and event celebrities (West and Orman 2003). Political
news worthies include celebrities who are good at getting on television and using the
media to get their message out, a category which includes notables such as John McCain
and Jesse Jackson Sr. The legacies category is fairly easy to understand, it is made up of
celebrities famous because of their name, such as the Kennedy’s. Famed nonpoliticos, on
the other hand, are celebrities who made their name outside the realm of politics. This
includes elected officials such as Clint Eastwood, as well as lobbyist and spokesperson
2
Martin Sheen. The final category, event celebrities, includes people who gained their
celebrity from an event; one example would be Anita Hill (West and Orman 2003).
Jesse Ventura and Arnold Schwarzenegger fall under West and Orman’s category
of famed nonpoliticos (elected officials). They are considered self-made celebrities who
have a substantial amount of wealth. Jesse Ventura was a professional wrestler and radio
talk show host before being elected Governor of Minnesota (Lentz 2002). After his
wrestling days were over Ventura played a few roles in movies. He also became mayor
of a small Minneapolis suburb. He resigned from his popular radio show during his bid
for governor. Arnold Schwarzenegger, on the other hand, ran for governor of California
while his newest movie “Terminator 3” was still in theatres. There is no question as to
who the better known celebrity was and still is: Schwarzenegger. His celebrity status
extended to numerous places. He was a former Mr. Universe and famed bodybuilder. In
addition, he has had major roles in several major motion pictures. Finally, he married
Marie Shriver, all before he ran for governor.
West and Orman argue that celebrity politics has really taken off in today’s world
of entertainment driven media. “Economic pressures unleashed by the
hypercompetitveness of the contemporary American media have altered the manner in
which all reporters…cover the news. Journalists increasingly cover gossip in order to
build audience share” (West and Orman 2003). The obsession journalists have with
finding a story that will appeal to the people plays right into the hand of celebrities. In
addition, celebrities benefit from the decline in partisanship in today’s political world and
an increase in candidate centered politics (Niemi and Weisberg 2001). Members of the
electorate are much less inclined to vote for a candidate based solely on their political
3
affiliation. Instead, in today's more candidate centered campaigns, name recognition and
perceived candidate traits matter more (Niemi and Weisberg 2001). In short, the increase
in candidate centered politics coupled with the modern media’s entertainment driven
news coverage makes this an ideal time for celebrity candidates.
In addition to being suited to the characteristics that define current voting
behavior, celebrities also inspire an increased interest in politics (West and Orman 2003).
When a celebrity enters the world of politics, in any role, apparently everybody wins.
However, when a celebrity enters the political landscape, coverage of substance takes a
backseat to entertainment and spectacle (West and Orman 2003). The public, already
obsessed with the lives of celebrities, is enamored when a celebrity runs for office. Given
this already established interest, the media loves to cover a celebrity candidate (West and
Orman 2003). When a celebrity runs for public office he or she is viewed by the public
as a white knight of the political world and is seen as an outsider who is beholden to
nobody (West and Orman 2003). This occurs because the candidate has obviously not
been involved in politics his or her entire life and usually has substantial amounts of
money, which would imply they do not need special interest funding (West and Orman
2003). In sum, celebrity candidates tend to be darlings of the media and are viewed by
the public as a refreshing voice in a world of sleazy politics.
Media Effects
There is ample evidence showing how the media can influence the public,
including agenda setting, priming, and framing (Niemi and Weisberg, 2001; Mark J.
Rozell, 2003). Of these, framing is one of the most effective methods the media has at its
disposal to influence the public. The media can “frame” a candidate, that is, they can
4
create the context in which the public views the candidate. Research on framing,
conducted by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, has demonstrated the different
effects of positive and negative frames (Iyengar 1991). When the subject of a news story
is framed as potential gain people are more inclined to support it and the opposite is true
when the subject is framed in a negative light (Iyengar 1991). Rozell’s quote of Robert
Entman regarding framing further explains what type of power framing can have:
To frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them
more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a
particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation,
and/or treatment recommendation for the item described (Rozell 279).
The media has the ability to make the public, if they do not know a lot about the topic in
this light or are non-experts, think of a candidate in a certain way (Iyengar 1991).
Further research on framing has provided evidence of frame narratives. James
Mann describes this type of frame in the context of news framing of China. He states
that, “the frame sets the background, the assumed context, which China stories usually
must deal with in one for or another. A reporter can challenge or contradict the frame but
can’t completely ignore it…” (Doris A. Graber 2000). Perhaps a celebrity narrative
frame exists for celebrity candidates that each story must deal with.
The media creates the context in which the would-be politician is viewed. It
follows that the way the media portrayed Ventura and Schwarzenegger during their
campaigns would have a significant impact on how they were viewed by the electorate.
Given the influence the media has on the public it is important to determine how Ventura
and Schwarzenegger were not only framed for the public, but also the different frames
present when compared to each other.
5
Methods
To study how the media portrayed candidates Jesse Ventura and Arnold
Schwarzenegger in their elections, a content analysis of newspaper articles from a major
newspaper was used for each candidate. For Schwarzenegger the Los Angeles Times was
used and for Jesse the Minnesota Star Tribune. These newspapers were selected because
they had the largest circulation in their states. A census was taken of the articles written
about each candidate during the three months before their elections. The three month
time period was chosen because it would provide not only a good amount of coverage but
would also show how coverage changed over time. The search engines Lexis-Nexis and
Proquest were used to perform the content analysis. Each article concerning one of the
candidates was analyzed for relevance to this study. Articles that were turned up in the
search but only mentioned a candidate in an insignificant way, such as simply mentioning
his presence at an event but not going into detail, were not used for the content analysis.
When an article was deemed to have enough information to frame a candidate it was
analyzed for the dominant frame of the article. Admittedly this was an arbitrary decision,
however virtually all articles with more than a mere mentioning of candidates were used.
In addition only one person decided the frames that were present. Drawing on previous
research, three pre-determined categories for frames were established before the analysis
was conducted: horserace, personal, and policy, which are defined in the next paragraph
(Iyengar 1991). After initial research was conduced it became clear that more frames
were present and in the end each frame was placed in one of the following categories:
horserace, personal, celebrity, policy, and in the case of Arnold Schwarzenegger, recall
race.
6
The horserace frame is perhaps the most well known. According to Shanto
Iyengar horserace frames are …news stories, which have become a staple of campaign
coverage, detail the candidates’ electoral prospects—their poll standings, delegate
counts, fund-raising efforts, and related campaign indicators. (Iyengar 1991) If it was
determined that the frame of an article was focused on the horserace aspect of a candidate
it was placed in this category. An article written using this frame could portray the
candidate in either a positive or negative light. During the content analysis some frame
categories were discovered to be made up of negative and positive frames. The positive
and negative frames were present for the policy, personal, horserace, and celebrity
categories. A frame was placed into a positive category if it was portraying some aspect
of a candidate in a positive way. For instance, the portrayal of Jesse Ventura as a
common person was a positive frame because it was a beneficial frame for the candidate.
A frame was considered negative if it had the opposite effect, such as the sex-scandal that
Schwarzenegger had to endure.
The next frame category was a personal frame. An article was placed in this
group if it focused on personal aspects of a candidate. This could include, for instance,
an article that focused on a candidate’s qualifications or on their character. Once again
these frames could portray a candidate in either a negative or positive way. The third
frame category was the celebrity frame. It was sometimes hard to decide whether or not
an article fit into this category or the personal category. Both talked about the candidate
as a person; however an article was placed in the celebrity frame category if its focus was
solely on a candidate’s celebrity background. For instance, there was at least one article
about each candidate that focused on their personal history, thus it focused on their past
7
involvement in Hollywood. This frame category was created because only a celebrity
candidate has the ability to be framed this way. There did not seem to be any expressly
negative frames in this category; however there were some positive ones.
The next frame category was the policy frame. An article was placed into this
category if it focused on the positions taken by a candidate on issues talked about during
the campaign. Positive and negative frames were present in this category as well. The
final frame was the recall frame and was unique to the media coverage of Arnold
Schwarzenegger. There was always a mention of Schwarzenegger in these articles but
their main focus was still the recall race. For instance, Schwarzenegger could have been
mentioned as a candidate in the race in addition to the many other candidates.
Results
Ventura
There were seventy-four articles printed during the three month period leading up
to the election of Jesse Ventura that at least mentioned his name. Of those seventy-four
articles, thirty-eight presented a frame of Ventura. The other articles were either too
short or the mentioning of Ventura was incidental. From each article one dominant frame
was determined. Table one shows the breakdown of frame categories from the articles
about Jesse Ventura.
Table 1
Frame Category
Amount of Frames
Policy
3
Positive
2
Negative
1
Horserace
12
Positive
1
8
Negative
11
Personal
19
Positive
13
Negative
6
Celebrity
4
Positive
0
Recall Race
0
Total
38
Chart 1
Frame Categories for Jesse Ventura
Policy
8%
Celebrity
11%
Horserace
32%
Personal
49%
The majority of frame categories fell into the personal frame category, which
accounted for forty-nine percent of all frame types. Frames in this category can be
broken down into positive and negative frames. Sixty-eight percent of personal frames
used were positive in nature. Only one type of positive frame was used for Ventura, that
of the political outsider. This was a positive frame because previous literature indicates
that the public views celebrity political outsiders in a positive way. Every personal
positive frame used in the Star Tribune concerning Jesse Ventura was that he was not a
9
politician, or, more specifically that he was a political outsider. Four of the thirteen
politician frames portrayed Ventura as a common person. This would occur when an
article portrayed Ventura not only as not a politician but also as a common person,
someone with whom the average citizen could relate.
There were also negative personal frames. These frame types accounted for
thirty-two percent of the personal frames. When an article was placed into this category
the frame always portrayed Ventura as not qualified for the job of governor. There were
many ways this frame type surfaced. In some instances an article would point to his lack
of experience in politics, or more specifically, the lack of important duties associated
with his role as mayor.
The next most commonly occurring frame type was the horserace frame. This
accounted for thirty-two percent of the frame categories. Frames that fell into this
category could also be broken down into positive and negative in nature. There were
twelve horserace frames observed for Ventura. Of those twelve, eleven were negative.
The only positive frame present, printed the day of the election, was actually closer to
neutral in nature; it simply stated that Ventura had a chance to win. The other eleven
frames portrayed Ventura as behind in polls and fundraising. It is also interesting to note
that four of the eleven negative frames portrayed Ventura as not only behind in the polls,
but as a spoiler.
The final frame types, policy and celebrity, occurred least often with Ventura.
The policy frame accounted for only eight percent of the total frames observed. Articles
framed about policy tended to occur after debates and would report the stances taken by
candidates on the issues that were debated. The celebrity frame accounted for the final
10
eleven percent of the categories and occurred much less often than originally theorized.
For Ventura, articles talking solely about his celebrity status, such as his movie career or
professional wrestling, tended to be biographical pieces used to tell the reader about the
candidate’s past. The articles left it up to the reader to interpret whether or not the
candidate’s background would help or hinder him as a governor.
Not only were there differences in frame categories for Ventura, but there was
also a fair amount of variation in media coverage over time.
Chart 2*
Jesse Ventura Frame Types Over Time
04
8/
20
04
Date
1, Policy Frame
Positive
2, Policy Frame
Negative
3, Horserace Frame
Positive
4, Horserace Frame
Negative
5, Personal Frame
Positive
6, Personal Frame
Negative
7, Celebrity Frame
10
/2
10
/2
1/
20
04
4
4/
20
10
/1
/2
00
4
10
/7
20
0
4
30
/
20
0
9/
23
/
9/
9/
16
/
20
0
4
Frame Type
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
* Numbers one through seven in the chart correspond to a frame type. For instance, four, as seen in the
key, represents negative horserace coverage. Where ever the symbol, an X, corresponding to negative
horserace coverage appears along the four line represents one negative horserace frame.
The most obvious change in coverage over time was the substantial increase in most
frame types as the election grew nearer. The majority of negative horserace coverage and
positive personal stories occurred within the two week period before the election. The
celebrity frame was not present for roughly a month before the election; however it is
interesting to note that it was the first frame type observed. The coverage of Jesse
11
Ventura increased dramatically the closer election day became. In short, the majority of
articles about Ventura were positive in nature, however the horserace coverage, except
for the final few days before the election, was extremely negative. Coverage of political
substance, policy frames, was the least common frame category.
Schwarzenegger
Not only were there were many more articles written about Schwarzenegger, but
they also occurred over a shorter period of time. Articles concerning Schwarzenegger
actually being a candidate in the race for California governor, not articles speculating
about whether or not he would run, began appearing August 10th, roughly two months
before the recall took place. Each of the eighty-eighty articles analyzed had one frame.
The breakdown of frame categories is shown in table two and chart three.
Table 2
Frame Category
Number of Frames
Policy
9
Positive
6
Negative
3
Horserace
17
Positive
11
Negative
6
Personal
34
Positive
7
Negative
27
Celebrity
14
Positive
4
Recall Race
14
Total
88
12
Chart 3
Frame Categories for Arnold Schwarzenegger
Policy
10%
Recall
16%
Horserace
19%
Celebrity
16%
Personal
39%
The most dominant frame category was the personal frame category; it was made up of
five types of personal frames. Its breakdown is shown in chart four.
Chart 4
Arnold Schwarzenegger Personal Frame
Categories
Is a Legitimate
Candidate
Not Qualified
6%
12%
Sexual
Harassment
35%
Not a Politician
21%
Not a Political
Outsider
26%
The negative frames, sexual harassment, not a political outsider, and not qualified,
accounted for seventy-three percent of all frames. This is far different coverage than
Arnold’s Minnesota counterpart received from the news. The most dominant negative
13
frame observed was, by far, the sexual harassment frame. Sexual allegations against
Schwarzenegger were present throughout his campaign, but they developed into a fullfledged scandal for the last week before the recall election. All other news coverage of
Schwarzenegger was blacked out by coverage of his sex scandal. There were multiple
articles written each day and the news cycle was continually infused with new charges
levied against the candidate by different women.
1
It also appears that a backlash against the presupposed “white knight” image
conferred onto Schwarzenegger because of his celebrity status occurred. Over one fourth
of the personal frames addressed this celebrity benefit. They focused on the large amount
of money that Schwarzenegger raised and spent to win the race, as well as the fact that he
took significant donations from special interest groups while simultaneously decrying
their influence in California politics. There were also articles present that, as in
Ventura’s case, attacked Schwarzenegger’s qualifications to lead. The most commonly
occurring positive personal frame was the political outsider frame. There were also a
small number of articles framed to show Arnold as a legitimate and qualified candidate
for the office of governor.
The next most commonly occurring frame category was that of the horserace.
This represented 19 percent of the total news coverage and was very favorable to
Schwarzenegger. Almost two-thirds of the horserace coverage was positive for Arnold
and included his great success in fundraising as well as his position at or near the top of
many polls. This positive coverage is no surprise since Schwarzenegger was a legitimate
frontrunner candidate for the entire election. The negative horserace polls were present
According to an article published in the LA Times on October 6,2003 entitled Front-Runner Shifts to
Damage Control, by the end of the campaign 15 women had accused Arnold of sexual harassment
1
14
near the beginning of the election when Schwarzenegger was polling behind both
Governor Gray Davis and his lieutenant governor Cruz Bustamante.
The other frame categories, celebrity, recall race, and policy, represented sixteen,
sixteen, and ten percent respectively, of the total frame categories. Schwarzenegger’s
celebrity category was made up of neutral and positive coverage. There were four
articles that were about Schwarzenegger’s celebrity status that cast him in a very good
light. For instance, one article talked about how his role in action movies played very
well among the large Latino population (Daniel Hernandez, Los Angeles Times
September 13, 2003. Part A; Pg. 19).
The recall race frame was unique to the Schwarzenegger campaign. There were a
significant number of articles, more prevalent near the end of the race, that were about
the race itself. There were a few different types of articles, such as ones that would talk
about Schwarzenegger in some depth, but would also talk about some of the other
candidates running in the race. Secondly, horserace articles that focused on the poll
numbers regarding the amount of people who supported a recall, not who they would
support if a recall occurred were put into this category. The final frame category was the
policy frame category. Once again it had the least amount of news coverage with 66
percent of coverage being positive in nature.
The frames of Schwarzenegger over time are shown in chart five.
Chart 5*
15
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1, Policy Positive
2, Policy Negative
3, Horserace Positive
4, Horserace Negative
5, Personal Positive
10/5/2004
9/28/2004
9/21/2004
Date
9/14/2004
9/7/2004
8/31/2004
8/24/2004
8/17/2004
6, Personal Negative
8/10/2004
Frame Types
Arnold Schwarzenegger Frame Types Over Time
7, Celebrity
8, Celebrity Positive
9, Recall Race
* Numbers one through nine in the chart correspond to a frame type. For instance, four, as seen in the key,
represents negative horserace coverage. Where ever the symbol, an X, corresponding to negative horserace
coverage appears along the four line represents one negative horserace frame.
As the day of the recall drew closer the news coverage on Schwarzenegger increased
considerably. The dominant frame leading into the recall election was the negative
personal frame. It should also be noted that there were no positive personal frames for
roughly the entire month leading up to the election. This is no surprise given the scandal
Schwarzenegger had to endure. Horserace coverage is also present in negative and
positive forms. In summary the Schwarzenegger campaign endure a multitude of
negative personal frames, but were fortunate to receive positive celebrity frames as well
as very positive horserace coverage.
Discussion
There were similarities and notable differences between the frames present during
these campaigns and how previous literature predicted election coverage of celebrity
politics. The most prominent difference between previous writings and the observed
coverage of these celebrity candidates was the lack of horserace coverage. As noted
16
earlier, horserace coverage of campaigns has grown in conjunction with candidate
centered campaigns. While horserace coverage still accounted for the second most
frames for each candidate, the predominant frame for both candidates was the personal
frame. This could possibly be due to celebrity nature of the candidates or just candidate
centered politics in general. It has already been shown that entertainment news is very
popular with the public, perhaps this could account for the dominance of personal frames.
Another explanation for the dominance of personal frames could be tied to the
candidates’ celebrity status. There were a number of stories printed by the media that
used frames closely related to a candidate’s celebrity status. For example, the white
knight frame, or as referred to in this analysis as the political outsider frame, was
prominent for both candidates. While this was not an actual celebrity, it was present
because of a celebrity’s fame. The number of celebrity frames was also fairly consistent
between candidates, as shown in table three, each having a similar proportion. There was
also consistency in the lack of policy coverage, which did not seem to be any different
because of celebrity candidates, and still occurred the least. This was very supportive of
the same literature. Coverage of policy is not nearly as entertaining as is the coverage of
the candidate.
There were some important differences between coverage when comparing the
celebrity candidates. The percentage difference of frame categories between the
candidates is shown in table three.
17
Table 3
Frame Type
Ventura Percents
Schwarzenegger
Percents
Policy
13
10
Positive
67
67
Negative
33
33
Horserace
27
19
Positive
8
65
Negative
92
35
Personal
42
39
Positive
63
21
Negative
37
79
Celebrity
18
16
Positive
0
29
Recall Race
0
16
100
100
Total
The differences were most prominent in the two most often occurring frame categories,
personal and horserace. The differences were in the negative and positive coverage
received by each candidate. Schwarzenegger was forced to endure much more negative
coverage then his Minnesotan counterpart. The difference can be explained in part by the
scandal Schwarzenegger was forced to endure. Ventura never had to endure a scandal
although there were potential scandals the media could have run. According to Lentz the
media could have decided to run against Ventura for instance, there were questions about
whether or not Ventura had ever been a Navy S.E.A.L (Lentz 91). One likely
explanation for the lack of scandals could be that by the time the media decided to treat
him like a normal candidate, it was already too late and the election was about to occur
(Lentz 91). The differences may also be due to the media’s attempt to eliminate the
18
Schwarzenegger’s political outsider frame conferred to him because of his celebrity
status. The media did not try eliminate Ventura’s outsider status; in fact they played it
up. It was the only positive personal frame that he received. This could be attributed to
the candidate’s place in the horserace as an outsider or underdog. Schwarzenegger raised
substantial amounts of money from groups many would consider to be special interest
groups, but in doing so he hurt his outsider status. Ventura, on the other hand, did not
accept money from special interests and the media portrayed him as such.
Supporting the claims made in West and Orman’s Celebrity Politics, the public
does seem to grant celebrities an outsider status. In the case of Ventura, the status was a
given. It was never questioned by the media; however, the media often questioned
Schwarzenegger’s outsider status. He was able to, however, still use the outsider status;
it accounted for twenty-one percent of the personal frames. There did seem to be a
connection between a candidate’s celebrity status and the portrayal of them as not a
politician. There did not seem to be any link between how the candidates were covered
in the horserace frames. Instead the horserace coverage seemed to be consistent with the
types of campaigns they ran, one a major-party and one a third-party. The candidates had
the same proportion of negative to positive coverage concerning their policies.
The celebrity frames used on the candidates were also worth noting. It was
impossible to measure how they directly affected the race, but they seem to be important
nonetheless. It is not possible for a non-celebrity candidate to gain this type of frame.
This frame would seem, at the very least, to create name recognition for the candidates
which has already been shown to be critical to a candidate’s success. Gaining name
recognition is not an easy task, as noted later in the discussion section. It is important to
19
note that non-incumbent candidates who are fairly new to the political world, as well as
third party candidates, have a very difficult time gaining air time in the media. This does
not seem to be a problem for a celebrity. The media jumps on the chance to meld the
world of celebrity and politics-anything to get the public interested. A biography about a
non-celebrity candidate would probably not have the same appeal to the public as one
about a celebrity would.
There were some examples of these celebrity candidates having to endure some
of the same problems that normal politicians are forced to. The most obvious example
would be the scandal that rocked the Schwarzenegger campaign throughout the recall
race. Another example can be found in the Ventura campaign. He was never given
chance to win this election; even his climb in the polls was taken with a grain of salt. He
went from being no threat to a spoiler. This is consistent with the coverage of other thirdparty candidates (Lentz 2002). Of course, the fact that Schwarzenegger was able to
endure a major scandal and Ventura was able to win despite being portrayed as having no
chance raises further questions about the role of celebrity status.
There is no question that celebrities are granted benefits over non-celebrity
candidates. They are viewed by the public as outsiders and the media seemed to do little
to change this image. However, as evidenced by the scandals that Schwarzenegger had to
endure, and the constant portrayal of Ventura as behind in the polls, celebrities did have
to go through some of the same problems traditional candidates must endure. The media
did not appear to hold celebrity candidates, whether or not they were a frontrunner, to the
same standards they held normal politicians to. This was shown by the media’s lack of
scrutiny when the celebrity candidates were vague on policy. It is ironic to note that
20
Schwarzenegger received less criticism for his lack of experience in office then did
Ventura, who actually had more experience. The ample evidence for a shift away from
political substance seems to be ever more evident when a celebrity runs for office. What
little coverage of policies and qualifications feel by the wayside during both of these
elections, shifting instead to how they were political outsiders and continuing to focus on
the horserace.
There does seem to be some hope for those who fear a complete takeover in of
governorships by celebrities. When a celebrity ran in a traditional way, that is, as
endorsed by a major party, the media did attack their perceived outsider status. The
media also had no qualms aiding the feeding frenzy of a scandal. The next celebrity
challenger to an open seat should not expect to get a free ride from the press, however
they will not have to worry about all the problems a normal candidate has to.
Further Research
A comparison between celebrity and non-celebrity candidates could reveal
advantages that celebrity politicians have. A comparison between Arnold
Schwarzenegger and Christine Todd Whitman, who ran for governor of New Jersey in
1993, could show differences in framing between celebrity and non-celebrity candidates.
Her election took place under similar circumstances. One major caveat is the nature of
the race Schwarzenegger ran in the recall. However, Whitman had many of the same
faults found in Schwarzenegger. She had very little experience as a public servant, she
endured a major scandal, and her campaign was vague when presenting policies (Carsey
2000, Pgs 91-93). These are all issues that could have been raised to a much greater
degree during Schwarzenegger’s campaign then they were.
21
Comparing Ventura to another third-party candidate is a little more difficult;
however former reform party politician Ross Perot would seem an obvious option. He
could also be compared to how previous literature shows a typical third-party candidate is
portrayed by the media. They generally have trouble gaining news coverage and are
ruthlessly attacked when it appears they do not have a solid policy base (Lentz 86-89). If
this analysis were carried out certain celebrity advantages may become more obvious. It
seems one obvious advantage these candidates had over their non-celebrity counter parts
was name recognition. How much of an advantage do celebrity candidates have over
traditional politicians?
22
Works Cited
Carsey, Thomas M. (2000). Campaign Dynamics The Race for Governor. Ann Arbor,
Michigan, The University of Michigan Press.
Iyengar, Shanto. (1991). Is Anyone Responsible. Chicago, The University of Chicago
Press.
Lentz, Jacob. (2002). Electing Jesse Ventura A Third-Party Success Story. Boulder,
Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc.
Niemi, Richard G. and Weisberg, Herbert F. (2001). Controversies in Voting Behavior.
Washington D.C., CQ Press.
Norris, Pippa, and Kern, Moneague, and Just, Marion. (2003). Framing Terrorism The
News Media, the Government, and the Public. New York, NY, Routledge.
Orman, John and West, Darrell M. (2003). Celebrity Politics. Upper Saddle River, New
Jersey, Courier Companies Inc.
Klarevas, Louis. Media Impact. In Rozell, Mark J. (Eds.) (2003) Media Power Media
Politics. Lanham, Maryland, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Mann, James. Covering China. In Graber, Doris A. (Eds.) (2000) Media Power in
Politics. Washington, DC, CQ Press.
23