Page 11 - Historical Dictionary of Political Communication in the United States

INTRODUCTION
X
reasons. One is the expansion of media and the related expansion of political
communication. The other is the initiation of doctoral programs in mass com-
munication and the growth in political science doctoral programs since World
War II.
There has been more to study and more people to study it. Consequently, we
know a great deal more about political communication. The conventional wis-
dom of politicians has given way, to some extent, to the knowledge of research-
ers who have studied various aspects of political communication.
It is difficult to chart a trend in that research. We are still pursuing some of
the issues that Lazarsfeld and his colleagues studied. This is, in part, because
political communication is a complex process. Harold Lasswell reduced political
communication to who says what to whom with what effect. That seems easy
enough until you realize that each of the four parts interacts with the other three,
and in some instances combinations of the three interact to produce a result with
the fourth one.
Yet, if we do not have all the answers, it probably is because we have not
asked all the questions. Unquestionably, we have more answers than we used
to have. It has been said that knowledge is tentative and always expanding, and
there are few fields in which that is more true than the field of political com-
munication changes. This dictionary is a benchmark for where the field is, which
we hope will be helpful to those who will do the research that expands our
knowledge of political communication.

NOTES

1. Leonard W. Levy, ed., Freedom of the Press from Zenger to Jefferson (Indianapolis:
Bobbs-Merrill, 1966), p. 333.
2. Richard Shenkman, Legends, Lies and Cherished Myths of American History (New
York: Harper & Row, 1988), pp. 88-89.