Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 23:54:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Scott London <london@rain.org>
Subject: MAD AS HELL by Germond & Witcover


Book Review:
~~~~~~~~~~~~

MAD AS HELL
Revolt at the Ballot Box, 1992
By Jack Germond and Jules Witcover
Warner Books, 1993, 534 pp., $24.95

STRANGE BEDFELLOWS
How Television and the Presidential Candidates Changed 
   American Politics, 1992 
By Tom Rosenstiel
Hyperion, 1993, 368 pp., $24.95.


In "The Making of a President, 1960," widely regarded as the prototype of
campaign journalism, Theodore White wrote that "the true story" of a
presidential campaign "must remain an exercise for tomorrow's historians,
not for today's reporters."  All the same, a new crop of campaign books
appears every four years that in some way or another presumes to tell "the
true story."  And, ironically, most of them are modeled on Theodore
White's book. 

     "Mad As Hell" is journalists Germond and Witcover's fourth campaign
book together.  Based on nearly a hundred post-mortem interviews with
political insiders, as well as a detailed chronology of events culled from
the authors' columns in the Baltimore Sun and National Journal, this is,
in effect, an anthology of conventional wisdom about the 1992 campaign. 
Twenty-nine chapters cover the race from the early days of the Bush
presidency, when the prospect of his reelection seemed almost inevitable,
to pre-primary controversies such as the Gennifer Flowers affair and the
draft-dodging accusations, to the talk show candidacy of Ross Perot (the
"Billion Dollar Messiah"), the conventions, and the blitz of infomercials,
interviews, and debates in the final weeks before the election.  True to
their role as political reporters, Germond and Witcover are first and
foremost debriefers, not analysts.  As a result, their book is almost
completely narrative and anecdotal, consisting of recollections,
reconstructed conversations, and a seemingly encyclopedic wealth of facts. 

     Prior to the publication of "Mad As Hell," Witcover remarked in an
interview that they have "gotten into the groove of writing these books." 
It shows.  The authors, their journalistic neutrality notwithstanding,
sound disdainful, grumpy, and aloof.  What set the campaign of 1992 apart
>from those of the recent past, they suggest, was the "hunger of voters"
for straight and meaningful answers by the candidates, as well as the
innovative ways the candidates found to express their messages to the
electorate.  Beyond this fairly banal observation, however, the authors
never capture the essence of the campaign -- that is, the mood of the
country, the disaffection and yearning for political substance on the part
of the citizenry, and the underlying reasons why voters were "mad as
hell."  It is possible that they are content to leave that to "tomorrow's
historians," but more likely it has to do with their complete lack of
interest in presidential campaigns as a democratic phenomenon.  In the
final analysis, this is a book by and about the political elite. 

     Far more satisfying is Tom Rosenstiel's account of the race, viewed
"from the other side of the camera lens."  Convinced that no one can
understand American politics without understanding American television
first, he put the notion to the test by following one television network
for the entire 1992 campaign.  The result is a briskly written, largely
anecdotal account of the 1992 race that weaves together observations about
the nuts-and-bolts of network news, reflections about the uneasy
partnership between the press and politicians, and colorful portraits of
characters such as Peter Jennings, ABC News president Roone Arledge, and
Ross Perot.  Rosenstiel waves aside theories about media bias,
spin-control, and agenda setting.  At bottom, he observes, political
candidates and television share the same basic goal -- to create a
compelling show. 

     In addition to giving a fairly routine chronology of the campaign, he
touches on many subjects here, ranging from the alleged liberal bias of
the press to its pack mentality to the disorientation from American daily
reality that afflicts both politics and the press.  Overall, however, he
does little to challenge either the conventional wisdom about campaign
coverage or the conventions of campaign books modeled on White's "The
Making of a President." 


                                   Scott London * london@rain.org