Page 91 - Historical Dictionary of Political Communication in the United States

LIMITED-EFFECTS
MODEL
80
2. Identification, which means that the plaintiff is clearly identified. This can be by use
of the name or a picture or a verbal description.
3. Defamation, which means that the material in question indicates the identified person
did something illegal or immoral or contrary to the standards of the community.
Technically, a plaintiff must also prove fault and harm. However, fault is not
really an issue because libel results from the deliberate act of publishing, and
harm is presumed to result from any libel.
Libel suits are civil cases, and winners collect monetary damages. A series
of Supreme Court cases beginning with New York Times v. Sullivan (367 U.S.
254) established that a public official or public figure must prove actual malice
or reckless disregard of the truth to win a libel suit. If the public official or
public figure can prove this, he or she can collect punitive damages, which run
into six or seven figures.

SOURCE: Dwight L. Teeter, Jr., and Don R. LeDuc, Law of Mass Communications,
eighth edition, 1995.
Guido H. Stempel HI

LIMITED-EFFECTS MODEL. Early mass communication research showed
what came to be termed limited effects. A frequent finding was that commu-
nication increased information but did not change attitudes. This perplexed re-
searchers of a half century ago so much that there were journal articles about
why information campaigns did not change attitudes.
More recent research has modified the model. Perhaps the groundbreaking
study was by Dorothy Douglas, Bruce Westley, and Steven Chaffee in Wiscon-
sin. They found that attitudes about mental retardation could be changed by an
information campaign. They concluded this was possible because the topic does
not invoke deep-seated personal values and is not controversial. The researchers
conceded that the same results probably would not have been obtained if the
topic had been sex education or water fluoridation.
So, while an information campaign will not change everybody's attitude, and
while information campaigns will work better on some topics than on others,
they can and do work under the right conditions.
SOURCES: Dorothy F. Douglas, Bruce H. Westley, and Steven H. Chaffee, "An In-
formation Campaign That Changed Attitudes," Journalism Quarterly, Autumn 1970;
Werner J. Severin and James W. Tankard, Jr., Communication Theories, fourth edition,
1997.
Guido H. Stempel III

LIPPMANN, WALTER (1889-1974) was one of the first political columnists
and was believed by many to have been the best. But more important for the
field of political communication, he was the author of Public Opinion in 1922.
It remains the classic statement, and some would date the beginning of the study
of political communication from this book.