VIRTUAL IMAGE: BUSH, GORE’S USE OF INTERNET IMAGERY HIGHLIGHTS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CANDIDATES

FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. — Voters in the 2000 presidential election may have griped about the similarity of the major-party candidates, George W. Bush and Al Gore. But research conducted at the University of Arkansas shows that visitors to the Internet would have noticed a marked difference between the two — namely in the way they used technology to promote their images.

Rebecca Tillery, formerly a master’s student in communication at the U of A and now a doctoral student at the University of Missouri, and Rob Wicks, associate professor of communication, presented their article "Images of the 2000 Presidential Candidates on the Internet" at the 2002 meeting of the National Communication Association. Their presentation was honored as one of the top five papers at the conference.

Conducted between Sept. 25 and Dec. 3, 2000, Tillery and Wicks’ research examined photographic images that appeared on Bush and Gore’s official Web sites during the presidential campaign. Only photographs that contained the presidential candidate or his running mate were considered. All such images were counted, then analyzed for visual attributes that fell into the categories of behavior, context and perspective.

"Aside from political advertising, homepages are the one place where candidates have control over the way they are portrayed," Tillery explained. "We wanted to know how Bush and Gore were using that medium to present themselves, so we examined whether their pictures

showed them smiling or not, the position of their hands and arms, whether they were making a presentation to an audience or interacting one on one — various ways by which a photograph conveys a message."

In examining the images, Tillery and Wicks immediately noted a difference in the volume of pictures each candidate posted. While Bush’s Web site contained about 67 images over the course of the campaign, Gore’s site sported more than 500. The use and presentation of images also differed, with the pictures on Gore’s site changing almost daily, reflecting the candidate’s campaign activities and illustrating the day’s major topics and news releases. Bush’s site presented a static picture on the opening page and far fewer illustrative images supporting the text.

"We’re not talking a difference between 150 images on one candidate’s site and, say, 175 on the other’s. This was a significant disparity, and it tells us something about each candidate’s understanding and use of technology," Wicks said.

Gore, who regularly emphasized the need to increase computer access in schools and rural areas, clearly understood the Internet’s capacity to convey information — both verbally and visually, according to the researchers. While Bush’s homepage contained a great deal of text information, the relative paucity of images shows less regard for the multi-media uses of the Web.

Of equal interest was the way candidates used photographs to project a specific image of themselves, Tillery said. Looking through the photographs, she noticed that Gore was often depicted in casual clothes, interacting with people on a personal basis, conversing, listening, shaking hands. In contrast, Bush’s pictures showed him in suit and tie, delivering speeches to large audiences, posed as a leader and statesmen.

This difference in content led Tillery and Wicks to suspect that Bush and Gore were using their Web sites to counteract the way that traditional media had characterized them. Criticized as uptight and stiff, Gore went out of his way to present himself as laid-back and approachable on his homepage. Meanwhile, Bush, whose intelligence and qualifications had both been questioned, posted pictures that reinforced his image as a leader, confident and competent.

"There’s been research that indicates image isn’t all that important in communicating ideas. But one thing that images do very well — even better than text in many cases — is evoking feelings," Tillery said. "The images Bush and Gore placed in their homepage photo galleries

were an attempt to make people feel a certain way about them."

While examining the differences between the 2000 presidential candidates may seem outdated in 2002, the research is by no means irrelevant. Studying the way that political candidates use new technology not only reveals something about their priorities — it also informs the public about how to interpret and judge the information they find through new media. This lesson gains importance with every passing year, Wicks said, as the Internet continues to develop and as more and more people turn to it for information.

In their paper, Tillery and Wicks note that the 1992 presidential election represented the first time candidates used the Internet to post political information. Ross Perot initiated the trend that year, with Bob Dole and Bill Clinton following suit during their election bids in 1996.

"Without a doubt, the Internet evolved quickly through the 90s, but in many respects, we’re still at the very beginning of this technology. The 2000 election was the first time that candidates began to use the medium not just to deliver information but to try and communicate their personalities and priorities in a way that couldn’t be presented through television or news," Wicks said.

Wicks believes that coming elections will see even greater Internet activity, both on the part of political candidates and the general public. As the technology evolves, he expects to see more use of streaming video and interactive features. In addition, he expects the public to collect more of their information about candidates directly from the source, bypassing the interpretive filter of the news media.

"People are becoming more savvy about using technology at the same time that they’re becoming more sophisticated about judging information for themselves. We don’t necessarily need journalists to deliver information to us and then show us its significance," he said. "I think it’s good that there’s an unfiltered medium where Bush can tell you everything he wants you to know about himself and where Gore can do the same thing. And it’s good that you can look at them both and then make up your own mind."