MAKING HISTORY TODAY: Media and U.S. Politics - Kathryn Cramer Brownell on Showbiz Politics

Making History Today, produced by the History program at Fitchburg State University, connects the classroom to historians working in their fields. In these conversations, students discuss works assigned in class and develop questions for the authors, which are then posed in these episodes. 

The first series of conversations emerges from Prof. Katherine Jewell's graduate course in Fitchburg State's online Master's program in History in summer 2023 on Media and U.S. Politics.

In this episode, Professor Jewell talks with Kathryn Cramer Brownell of Purdue University about her first book, Showbiz Politics: Hollywood in American Political Life.Dr. Brownell received her B.A. from the University of Michigan and her Ph.D. from Boston University. Her research and teaching focus on the relationships between media, politics, and popular culture, with an emphasis on the American presidency.

Showbiz Politics: Hollywood in American Political Life, (University of North Carolina Press, 2014) explores the institutionalization of Hollywood in American politics. This book traces the key personal relationships, institutions, and government policies that established the foundation for a celebrity political culture and made entertainment a central feature of American politics. 

Her second book, released just after the conclusion of the graduate course, 24/7 Politics: Cable Television and the Fragmenting of America from Watergate to Fox News, (Princeton University Press, 2023), explores the political battle over cable television from the 1960s through today, excavating how the American political process became tethered to the business interests of a corporate cable television industry. 

She also serves as Senior Editor for the Made By History column at TIME Magazine: https://time.com/author/made-by-history/.

Episode transcript can be found here.

***

This episode was edited and sound mixed by Adam Fournier, a member of the Perseverantia staff and a student in the Communications Media department.

Click here to learn more about Perseverantia . Join us for programming updates on Instagram. Or reach out with ideas or suggestions at podcasts@fitchburgstate.edu.

Transcript

[ Classroom Stories theme fades in ]

[ 00min 09sec ] 

Prof. Katherine Jewell (host):
Kathryn Cramer Brownell is Associate Professor of History at Purdue University. Her first book, which students read for this class, Showbiz Politics, Hollywood, and American Political Life, came out from the University of North Carolina Press in 2014, and explores the institutionalization of Hollywood in American politics.  Her second book, 24/7 Politics: Cable Television, and the Fragmenting of America from Watergate to Fox News, came out this summer, excavating how American political processes became tethered to the business interests of a corporate cable television industry. 

One of the students’ assignments was to react to their reading, highlighting key arguments and evidence, engaging critically with them, and exploring their implications. Here's Anna Rosenfeld discussing showbiz politics:

[ Classroom Stories theme continues ]

[ 00min 56sec ] 

Anna Rosenfeld:
Hello, my name is Anna Rosenfeld, and I am pursuing a Masters in Education at Fitchburg State University. 

[ Classroom Stories theme fades out ]

As a member of Professor Katherine Jewell’s Media and US Politics Course, I thoroughly enjoyed reading and analyzing Kathryn Cramer Brownell’s book Showbiz Politics.

Moving through each decade, Brownelll dives deep on JFK's creation of the celebrity president in the 1960s and later the use of cable television in the late 60s and 70s.  By the 1990s, the line between politics and entertainment had blurred; the voters became the fans, the media the paparazzi, and the President the Star.  

Skepticism is a major theme running through the study of media and politics.  No matter the decade or president, there were people who disagreed with the use of Hollywood in the political sphere,

[ Classroom Stories theme fades in ]

Whether used for good or evil, showbiz politics has been a force at play for over a century and is here to stay.

[ 01min 50sec ] 

Prof. Katherine Jewell (host):
Welcome to the podcast for my graduate class on US politics and Media, which is happening during the summer of 2023.  And I'm thrilled to welcome Kathryn Cramer Brownell. 

Dr. Kathryn Cramer Brownell:
Thank you so much for having me. I'm delighted to be here. 

Prof. Katherine Jewell (host):
So my students put together a series of questions after reading your book, things that they just wanted to know more about. And so I guess we'll start off with the research and the process of writing this book. One student asks “Your in-depth research of the early days of media and its integration into politics is very impressive.”  I agree.  “How can you explain your research process and how long did this book take you to write? How did you decide on the time frame the book would cover?”

Dr. Kathryn Cramer Brownell:
That's such a great question, and I'm honored that your students are reading and engaging with the work because I have spent years writing this book.  And it really began when I was in graduate school thinking through the questions that really interested me. And that's the connection between media, politics and popular culture. 

As I was taking seminar classes, I kept coming back to these these intersections.  And it was at the same time I was starting to write my prospectus for my dissertation, and this is in the early 2000s or mid 2000s, and about 2007, 2008.  And it was at the time that Jon Stewart was frequently referenced as the most trusted man in America. 

And to me, that was really intriguing. How did a comedian, a late night entertainer? How did he assume the role that the likes of Walter Cronkite had previously assumed in the American public realm and in conversations about politics and public affairs?  And so I started to dig into it, assuming that there was a robust history and in fact there wasn't.  

[ 03min 45sec ] 

And so my first research paper dug into Ronald Reagan. I figured that that's where it began. But in fact, I realized that he was a culmination of these political negotiations, changes in party politics. And cultural values that happened over the course of the 20th century. 

Prof. Katherine Jewell:
So the students really focused on, kind of, two sets of dynamics in the book.  And it's probably unsurprising that they saw a lot of contemporary resonances to your work.  So the first dynamic that the students focused on had to do with New Media.  

And so they wrote, or one student wrote, “media and its impacts on politics – whether it be positive or negative – have influenced U.S. politicians for over a century” – as they learn from your book. “But new forums such as TikTok Reels and deep fakes are spreading political fodder throughout the country, and it seems that politicians are in the same unfamiliar territory that they found themselves in the 1930s. So, for you, who studied that era in depth, can politicians in 2023 learn from some of the growing pains that politicians dealt with in the early 20th century with the rise of radio.”

[ 05min 01sec ] 

Dr. Kathryn Cramer Brownell:
One of the things that I found really interesting is the fear that people had of propaganda. The fear of media manipulation.  And this really intensifies during the 1930s as Franklin Roosevelt is using motion pictures and radios in really savvy ways to sell his agenda to bypass journalists. Uh, the traditional mainstream media and and speak directly to the people in an unfiltered way, in a way so he could control the parameters of the conversation. 

And people were very worried about that, particularly his critics.  And when they looked across the Atlantic and saw that fascist regimes were doing the same thing, they really worried about this “dark magic” that they called it. 

And so there's constantly been this tension, this recognition, that there needs to – politicians need to tap into new technologies and forms of entertainment too to connect to the to, to connect to their voters.  They have to speak the same language – to build rapport and sell their policies. 

But where is that line? Where is that line between spin and publicity and propaganda and manipulation?  And I think over the course of the 20th century that's frequently been blurred. And I think the key to learning about that is to be able to unpack it.  You know, and that voter education has been an important component that's not always at the forefront of those conversations. 

Prof. Katherine Jewell:
So the other dynamic that this students focused on was the question of gender.  And obviously your book deals mostly with male politicians since we still haven't had a woman president.  One student asked, “As more and more women enter politics and run for office, have they also embraced the turn to showbiz politics? In particular,” they noted, “Hillary Clinton's presidential aspirations that ended in defeat. If she were running again in 2024, or maybe another female politician running for office, what advice would you give her regarding her campaign and use of showbiz politics?”

[ 07min 08sec ] 

Dr. Kathryn Cramer Brownell:
Well, it was really interesting to watch the different uses of entertainment play out during the 2016 election because Hillary Clinton's campaign was the model of showbiz politics. 

This really professional Hollywood production. Everything was thought out. The performer, the imagery. It was so well choreographed and sold and presented in such a clear and compelling way in terms of those Hollywood production styles. 

On the other hand, Donald Trump's campaign was also very entertaining and capitalized on a different form of entertainment and a different genre in terms of the reality television style – kind of that shock and awe.  It was not polished and he used – even though he tried to make it polished frequently – he frequently used that as a way to assert his authenticity and criticize Clinton for her cozy relationship with Hollywood.  Even though, again, I would reiterate, it's important to note that he very much embodied that Hollywood, that celebrity persona – he drew on that to legitimize his own campaign. 

So you see two very different styles of showbiz politics kind of play out during the 2016 election. 

And and I think moving forward, you'll continue to see different approaches to entertainment.  Ones that capitalize on social media. Different forms that your students have already highlighted.  But also try to connect to that particular candidate and their strengths.  Hillary Clinton was a very – she wanted everything to be very polished and so her choice of entertainment reflected that. 

[ 08min 52sec ] 

And I think that that's really the key for women moving forward to think about how entertainment can add to their strengths – can enhance their communication style. Rather than try to force something that doesn't quite fit with who they are and what they want, how they want to present themselves. 

Prof. Katherine Jewell:

So one student wrote “One of the things that I couldn't stop thinking about in the early chapters of the book was how much it feels sometimes in 2023 that we are in a state of war against disinformation.  Short attention spans, profit centered quote, UN quote news or entertainment media, sound bite politics and journalism, and even deep fakes.” 

In other words, as another student put it, “Do you think showbiz politics is a necessary evil that society needs to renew civic interest?”

[ 09min 40sec ] 

Dr. Kathryn Cramer Brownell:

I think that showbiz politics can be a tool. It can be a tool to revive interest and engagement.  And perhaps a necessary tool in our culture that is so overwhelmed by consumption and entertainment. 

And so it can be a way to make connections, to get, to motivate people for action. But it can also be a tool to misinform. And I think we have certainly seen that. Over the past six years. How, how powerful of a tool of misinformation entertainment can be. And that it can, you know, really contribute to these echo chambers and an unwillingness to to have conversations across the political aisle and across political ideologies.  And to demonize other people as well. 

[ 10min 24sec ] 

One thing that's really key to understand why – 

I actually don't think that a World War II propaganda collaboration – that was very effective at raising money, generating morale and support for the war – I don't think that that could happen today. 

And it's not because – it certainly would raise suspicion.  But it's really because the media landscape has changed so much since the 1940s.  The early 20th century, and even into the mid 20th century, with network television and Hollywood, the Hollywood studio system, this is very much a media landscape that is designed to cultivate consensus. 

Regulatory policies almost kind of demanded that, and it created this monopolistic system that allowed Hollywood studios and network television executives to think about programming designed to capitalize on bringing the widest audience possible. 

Ultimately, that breaks down in the 1970s and 1980s. And it's something that my new book on cable television charts. It's called 24/7 Politics available for pre-order!  [ laughs  ]  

And part of what I talk about is how cable television emerges – almost by design – in the 1970s as a way to tear down the gatekeepers of network television and Hollywood studios – to allow diverse voices and even anti-establishment perspectives to emerge. 

And it really decentralizes the media landscape in a way that makes kind of those earlier collaborations during World World War II almost impossible now. 

[ 12min 08sec ]

Prof. Katherine Jewell:
So I'm going to turn things over to Raymond, who's one of the students in my class, for our 4th question.

Raymond:
Contemporary televised debates during presidential election seasons are often criticized for replacing decorum and some policy discussions, with carefully crafted personas and sound bites. To what extent do you think it is true? And is it a relatively newer phenomenon? Or are all televised debates, going back to JFK and Nixon, merely exercises in personality and telegenic appeal?

[ 12min 36sec ]

Dr. Kathryn Cramer Brownell:
I think the debates have long been about entertainment. There's a tendency to say that this is when we're gonna get substance, and it's it's – we're gonna eschew any notion of style and we're gonna have these serious conversations.

But even going back to the 19th century and the Lincoln Douglas debates. Yes, they were lengthy, but they also involved a lot of different social interactions that people came not just for the debates, but for those community connections and for those leisure activities that were embedded within those debates. 

And so. I I think that, you know, because part of it is – again – this perpetual challenge of how do you connect to the the broader public?  How do politicians present their ideas?  How do they get them excited about particular policies, particular candidates? 

So tapping into popular culture and entertainment industries has long been a tool to do that. 

During the 1960 debates, you know, they're frequently remembered as this moment where style overtook substance, and that's more of a mythology than if you actually look at the debates.  They were seriously talking about issues!  [ laughs ] 

And one of the really interesting things is how much they agreed on the issues in 1960 as well.  And if you actually watched the longer debates, they cover a lot of material. But the way that they have been remembered now is that TV was the deciding factor.  This is more a myth of media's power than an actual reality. 

But this myth has become the reality in the minds of so many politicians, and so they believe that debates are now all about style and nothing about substance.  And that every move, every sound bite has to be very carefully crafted. And so that's kind of the driving factor behind how people are preparing for them, how candidates are preparing for them, more so than what role they actually play. 

[ 14min 29sec ]

Prof. Katherine Jewell:
Picking up from where you end with Reagan, and maybe this ties in with cable television as well – How would you incorporate presidential elections that have happened in more recent years, or assess or maybe compare somebody like Donald Trump with Ronald Reagan, which you mentioned a little bit?  How have things evolved since your book ends? 

Dr. Kathryn Cramer Brownell:
Excellent question. And honestly, that's where the second book comes in because I thought that, again, I thought the first book that's about Hollywood and politics would be all about Reagan. But as I mentioned earlier, I recognized that he capitalizes on changes that happened over the course of the 20th Century.  

And my new book is about what happened.  Now that we're in this age of showbiz politics. How does it change governance? How does it change campaign parties or campaign operations and political parties?  How does it change the Presidency and Congress? 

And so those are things that I've been looking into in this current book. And what I have found is that Ronald Reagan is actually one of the last presidents – I would call him the President of the Broadcasting and Hollywood era.  He wanted to make conservatism popular.  He was not always successful, but that was his goal. 

He wanted to be popular. He wanted to appeal to a very broad consensus just the way he had as an actor – and those were values that that groomed him, and it's also what he really wanted to bring to the White House and to modern conservatism as well. 

[ 16min 01sec ]

That fundamentally changes after Reagan, where Bill Clinton and then George W. Bush – and presidents after – and especially with Donald Trump.  They're not looking to kind of create this broad, broad consensus. They're trying to invigorate their base, to make sure that they have their, perhaps, minority of people.  This is especially true with Donald Trump; that their smaller demographic turns out to vote more so than the majority of the American people.  And so they're not really driven by a majoritarian politics. Rather, they're using their ability to really connect to individual demographics to cultivate loyalty, and cable channels become a very powerful way to do this. 

[ 16min 48sec ]

Bill Clinton did this on MTV. Donald Trump does this on Fox News. They're able to cultivate this loyalty to these smaller but more loyal and more. Sorry, more vocal demographics to really dominate electoral politics by narrowcasting, essentially. 

[ 17min 04sec ]

[ Classroom Stories theme fades in ]

Prof. Katherine Jewell:
Thank you so much, Professor Kathryn Cramer Brownell for joining us. 

Dr. Kathryn Cramer Brownell:
Thank you so much for having me. 

[ Classroom Stories theme fades out ]

[ Perseverantia network theme fades in ]

Prof. Eric Budd:
This is Professor Eric Budd in Political Science. You're listening to Perseverantia, the Fitchburg State Podcast Network. 

[ Perseverantia network theme fades out ]