See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/284194760

Political humor on the radio, image repair, and Gracie

Allen's 1940 presidential campaign

Article  in  Journal of Radio & Audio Media · July 2015

DOI: 10.1080/19376529.2015.1083158

CITATIONS READS

2 42

1 author:

Josh Compton
Dartmouth College
56 PUBLICATIONS   452 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Political Humor/Political Image View project

Image Prepare, Image Repair, Inoculation Theory View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Josh Compton on 15 September 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 GOLD NUGGETS OF RESEARCH: HISTORICAL RESEARCH—
THE GOLDEN YEARS THEN

Political Humor on the Radio,

Image Repair, and Gracie Allen’s
1940 Presidential Campaign
Josh Compton

During her fictional 1940 presidential campaign, popular radio star Gracie
Allen was the target of criticism after her colleague told a joke referencing First
Lady Eleanor Roosevelt. Allen responded to the criticisms with a public letter.
In this analysis, Benoit’s image repair typology is used to study Allen’s letter.
A total of 5 implications are drawn, including issues of celebrity roles, the
effectiveness of mortification during image repair efforts, and challenges and
benefits of humor in an image repair situation, to better understand historical
political radio humor—an under-explored focus of image repair scholarship.

Gracie Allen was a popular star of screen, radio, and television, and the wife and
comedy partner of George Burns. They were co-stars of The Burns and Allen Show, a
popular radio program broadcast from the mid-1930s through 1950. Allen played a
silly character, a ‘‘Dumb Dora’’ role that originated in vaudeville (see Clements
& Weber, 1996, pp. 9–10), and most of her humor was gentle and apolitical
(Burns, 1988). But in 1940, things got political when Allen launched a presidential
campaign. Of course, it was a mock campaign; she had no intention of seriously
making a run for the presidency. Nevertheless, joking or not, the campaign secured
a good deal of media attention, commentary, and voter attention (see Compton,
2011b). Even a few politicians took notice, as did the First Lady, Eleanor Roosevelt.
Most of the humor of Allen’s presidential campaign matched the typical George and
Gracie routine. It was mild and silly. But one joke in particular received a critical
reception, and in the aftermath, Allen’s image was in jeopardy.
The controversial joke was told during Allen’s appearance on comedian Jack
Benny’s radio show. She did not even tell the joke; Benny did. Playing off of some

Josh Compton (Ph.D., University of Oklahoma, 2004) is assistant professor of speech in the Institute for
Writing and Rhetoric, Dartmouth College.
© 2015 Broadcast Education Association Journal of Radio & Audio Media 22(2), 2015, pp. 255–264
DOI: 10.1080/19376529.2015.1083158 ISSN: 1937-6529 print/1937-6537 online

255
256 Journal of Radio & Audio Media/November 2015

criticism that Eleanor Roosevelt traveled too much, Benny quipped: ‘‘Imagine Gracie
being president and George flying around the country visiting his grandchildren
in Seattle’’ (cited in Steinhauser, 1940b, p. 26). As Winfield (1988) points out,
Roosevelt’s ‘‘energetic travels were unusual and were news’’ (p. 339), so this barb
was likely well understood by the listening audience.
Indeed, Eleanor Roosevelt was a prominent political figure, highly interactive in
and with the press (see Winfield, 1988) and a public part of FDR’s re-election
campaign. ‘‘As far as what first ladies have done,’’ Winfield (1988) observes, ‘‘it is
hard to imagine such an active and vigorous first lady as Eleanor Roosevelt’’ (p. 332).
She was also very popular with the American public. Benny, then, was poking fun
at someone both well known and well liked, as part of the ‘‘campaign’’ of Allen.
Of course, conventional political campaigns are replete with image attacks, and
consequently, with image repair efforts (see Benoit, 1999; Pfau & Kenski, 1990).
Sometimes attacks are self-inflicted and necessitate image repair, such as Republican
presidential candidate Rick Perry’s memory lapse during a primary debate that
resulted in his widely mocked ‘‘oops’’ moment (Dewberry & Fox, 2012). Other
times, opponents launch attacks during campaigns that elicit responses, whether
in debates (e.g., Benoit, 2007) or in other campaign forums (e.g., Benoit, 1999;
Pfau & Kenski, 1990). After elections, politicians continue with their attempts to
build positive images if their images are damaged. President George W. Bush
responded to criticism of his military decisions (Benoit, 2006) and to challenges
to his handling of Hurricane Katrina (Benoit & Henson, 2009). Gary Condit, then
a member of the United States House of Representatives, responded to accusations
that he was involved in Chandra Levy’s disappearance (Len-Ríos & Benoit, 2004).
Allen’s response to accusations that she participated in disrespectful jokes about
Eleanor Roosevelt does not seem at the same level of severity or importance of this
list of examples, and yet, as this analysis will show, her image repair efforts often
paralleled those of other, ‘‘real’’ politicians. Like an actual politician, Allen’s success
depended on public support. With her image in jeopardy, she sought to reclaim it.

Political Image: Attack and Repair

Image repair often follows image attacks (see Benoit, 1995). An attack is com-
prised of two dimensions: (1) someone is accused of being responsible for an act;
and (2) that act is considered offensive (Benoit, 1995, 1997). With both dimensions,
perceptions matter. William Benoit notes that responsibility and offensiveness are
from the perspective of ‘‘a salient audience’’ (Benoit, 1997, p. 178, emphasis in
original) and that there might be many audiences involved.
Benoit’s (1995) image repair typology acknowledges and reflects previous scholar-
ship of image attacks (e.g., Ryan, 1982), image (e.g., Goffman, 1955), and apologia
(e.g., Ware & Linkugel, 1973). Benoit draws on this work, and others, to com-
pose a five-strategy typology, with some strategies further subdivided into tactics.
The strategies are: denial, evading responsibility, reducing offensiveness, correc-
 Compton/GRACIE ALLEN’S IMAGE REPAIR 257

tive action, and mortification. The strategy of denial can follow two paths: simple
and shifting the blame. Simple denial is a rejection of the attack, and shifting
the blame is a rejection of the attack and a refocus toward another party. The
strategy of evading responsibility is an attempt to reject accountability for the act
and has four tactics: provocation (the rhetor was provoked by another to do the
act), defeasibility (the rhetor was not in control), accident, and good intentions.
The strategy of reducing offensiveness rejects the degree of offensiveness and has
six tactics: bolstering (emphasizing what is good about the rhetor), minimization
(minimizing the offensiveness of the act), differentiation (comparing the act to more
offensive ones), transcendence (contextualizing the act), and attacking the accuser.
The strategy of corrective action commits to fixing the problem or the situation.
The strategy of mortification is an expression of regret. (See Benoit, 1995, 2000, for
more thorough treatments of the typology.)
Benoit’s typology of image repair has been used to study a number of image repair
instances in a number of contexts, including politics (e.g., Benoit, 2006; Benoit
& Henson, 2009; Dewberry & Fox, 2012; Len-Ríos & Benoit, 2004), commerce
(e.g., Benoit, 2011; Drumheller, 2011; Harlow, Brantley, & Harlow, 2011); sports
(e.g., Glantz, 2010; Walsh & McAllister-Spooner, 2011); and entertainment (e.g.,
Kauffman, 2012). Much of this research explores television and print; comparably
less attention has been focused on the medium of radio, which is the focus of this
current analysis, returning to radio’s ‘‘golden age’’ when radio was a central part of
news and entertainment, and more broadly, American culture.
This essay uses Benoit’s (1995) image repair typology as a rhetorical tool for
analyzing the image repair rhetoric of Allen. The method follows an approach
similar to recent political image repair analyses (e.g., Benoit & Anderson, 1996;
Kennedy & Benoit, 1997; Liu, 2007). Both the attack and repair efforts are explored
in the analysis, with Benoit’s (1995) typology used to identify various strategies and
tactics.

Gracie Allen’s Campaign

Allen announced her campaign for the presidency, as a representative of the

Surprise Party, on February 28, 1940. She joked that she was actually running for
her third term : : : first: ‘‘Sure, I want my third term first—then I’ll take the first and
second terms later—like coming into a movie during the last half of a double feature
: : : ’’ (cited in Listen!, 1940, p. 26). She modeled her jokes after conventional forms
of political campaign rhetoric. She had a campaign slogan—‘‘Down with common
sense, vote for Gracie’’ (cited in Burns, 1988, p. 185)—and a campaign song that
included the line, ‘‘Vote for Gracie to win the presidential racie’’ (cited in Burns,
1988, p. 188).
Allen’s presidential run was going to be a short—no more than two weeks on
the radio show (Burns, 1988). The stunt was popular, though, so they kept it going
longer, moving beyond their own radio show when she appeared on other radio
258 Journal of Radio & Audio Media/November 2015

programs (e.g., Jack Benny’s). Not to be constrained by one medium, ‘‘Gracie for
President’’ launched a ‘‘whistle-stop tour,’’ with 34 campaign stops, traveling via a
train offered by the Union Pacific Railroad (Burns, 1988, p. 186). She did not secure
many votes (e.g., Nelson Garners : : : , 1940, p. 5), but she did secure attention, with
coverage from the Chicago Daily Tribune and other notable newspapers.
As previously mentioned, much of Allen’s political rhetoric was silly. But an
incident early in her campaign was considered serious enough for her to break
character and publicly respond. Something more than a laugh was at stake; Allen’s
image was on the line.

The Joke and Reaction

As previously mentioned—the joke itself seems mild, especially in comparison to

contemporary political humor ridicule on late night comedy television. As part of
her presidential campaign, Allen appeared on Jack Benny’s show, and Benny made
a joke poking fun at Eleanor Roosevelt’s reputation for traveling a lot and being
away from the White House (see Steinhauser, 1940b).
The joke was broadcast on a Sunday night—March 3, 1940. The following Wed-
nesday, March 6, Si Steinhauser published a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette column about
the perceived offense. After noting that Benny made the remark and acknowledging
that it was meant as a joke, Steinhauser reported that many people considered
the joke to be distasteful. ‘‘[Critics of the joke] express themselves that we as
Americans owe a very definite respect to the White House family, that goes far
beyond partisanship’’ (Steinhauser, 1940a, p. 36). Steinhauer then offered a letter
from a reader as an exemplar of such criticism, and he prefaced the letter by noting,
‘‘we, as an individual, applaud the writer’’ (1940a, p. 36). The letter began:

Dear Sir: Granting that everyone is entitled to one’s own opinion—political and
otherwise, it does seem very unnecessary and to the writer in poor taste, that two
such popular and lovable radio teams as the ‘‘Burns’’ and the ‘‘Bennys’’ feel it their
duty to take verbal slaps at the White House Family. (cited in Steinhauser, 1940a,
p. 36)

The writer then notes that traveling to see family is justified, and were ‘‘screen and
radio people’’ to engage in such travel, they would ‘‘think it none of their public’s
business’’ (Steinhauser, 1940a, p. 36). The letter writer concluded: ‘‘It was a nasty
dig and it might impair the Benny popularity. Sincerely, LOU BRADEN’’ (cited
in Steinhauser, 1940a, p. 36). Steinhauser (1940a) followed the text of the letter
with a parenthetical reference to a joke told by Bob Hope about Mrs. Roosevelt’s
absenteeism because of travel in which Hope joked ‘‘there hadn’t been a woman
in the White House for eight years’’ (p. 36).
A few weeks later, Steinhauser published a letter from Allen in which she re-
sponded to the criticism. Her letter began: ‘‘I was surprised and distressed at the
very thought that Mr. Benny, Mr. Hope or myself showed a lack of respect for Mrs.
 Compton/GRACIE ALLEN’S IMAGE REPAIR 259

Roosevelt and the White House Family generally’’ (cited in Steinhauser, 1940b,
p. 26). Already, Allen’s rhetoric displays a deft sense of the rhetorical situation.
First, she expresses surprise, which immediately characterizes the offense as unin-
tentional, unplanned, and unexpected. In the first words, we see shades of evading
responsibility tactics: good intentions and accident. Her opening line suggests that
disrespecting Mrs. Roosevelt and ‘‘the White House Family generally’’ was never
an intention. Two words later, Allen is offering mortification—she is ‘‘distressed’’
by the situation. Her opening sentence probably came across to readers as heartfelt,
using affect-laden, sincere terms.
More is going on in this opening line. The focus of the situation shifts from the
joke itself and the resulting offense to ‘‘the very thought’’ that she or her colleagues
were disrespectful. That is, the target of focus is now on the idea that the comedians
were disrespectful instead of the joke itself as evidence of disrespect. Thus, when
Allen expresses her distress, it is at the idea that she was perceived as disrespectful
and not actual wrongdoing.
Note that Allen does not argue minimization. She does not narrow the scope of
the target of the joke to the First Lady, but instead, accepts that the scope of the
perceived infraction includes not only Mrs. Roosevelt but ‘‘the White House Family
generally.’’ In comparison to more recent examples of political humor and image,
this is a unique move. For example, when late night television host David Letterman
found himself under attack for a controversial joke about Sarah Palin’s daughter—
he made reference to her getting ‘‘knocked up’’ while attending a Yankees game—
one of his first strategies was to clarify the intended target of the joke—the older
Palin daughter, Bristol, who he thought was attending the baseball game, and not
the younger Palin daughter, 14-year-old Willow, who was actually in attendance
(Compton & Miller, 2011).
There is something else interesting happening here with scope. Allen is grouping
herself with Benny and with Hope. This is, in some ways, surprising, for she did not
tell the jokes in question—Benny and Hope did. Indeed, the letter writer specifically
mentioned that it was Jack Benny’s image that was affected by the joke. By grouping
herself with her colleagues in comedy, she serves as a surrogate for image repair—
her own and that of Benny and Hope. Scholars have studied third-party image
repair (e.g., Benoit & Czerwinski, 1996; Wen, Yu, & Benoit, 2009), but much of
this research looks at parties who are not implicated in the attack itself. Allen’s
situation was a bit different. She was responding to an attack in which she was also
implicated, but she also explicitly rises to the defense of her colleagues as part of
her own image repair efforts. She could have used denial—and even shifting the
blame—but did not.
Next, Allen ever so mildly attacks her accusers. She writes: ‘‘I am sure that
the remarks made by Mr. Benny and Mr. Hope were misinterpreted’’ (cited in
Steinhauser, 1940b, p. 36). After including herself in the trio of comedians in the
preceding line (‘‘: : : Mr. Benny, Mr. Hope or myself : : : ’’), Allen only includes Benny
and Hope in her remark. It is worth noting that it was, indeed, Benny and Hope
who made the offending remarks. In this same sentence, she explains the offense by
260 Journal of Radio & Audio Media/November 2015

placing the blame—gently—on the accuser. The remarks were not offensive; they
were ‘‘misinterpreted.’’ Later, she reiterates the defense that the issue is one of a
misunderstanding: ‘‘I am writing this only to try and explain that there must have
been a misunderstanding and to assure you and your readers that I shall continue to
give our First Family the respect they deserve’’ (cited in Steinhauser, 1940b, p. 36).
Allen also re-frames the concept of travel, noting: ‘‘[Benny and Hope] were
referring to Mrs. Roosevelt’s love of travel and she has often referred laughingly to
her frequent absence from the White House’’ (cited in Steinhauser, 1940b, p. 36).
Here, she attempts minimization. The verb choice is notable: Hope and Benny were
‘‘referring’’ to the First Lady’s traveling, not ‘‘mocking’’ or ‘‘ridiculing.’’ She also
places a positive spin on travel—shifting focus away from criticism of Roosevelt’s
travel and replacing it with the positive frame ‘‘Roosevelt’s love of travel.’’ She notes,
too, that Mrs. Roosevelt herself has joked about her travel, which surely serves an
additional minimizing function. Instead of laughing at Roosevelt, Hope and Benny
are now characterized as laughing along with her; they are in on the joke.
Allen follows this sentence with praise of Mrs. Roosevelt: ‘‘I had the pleasure
of meeting her at the Women’s Press Club banquet and she was as friendly and
charming as ever’’ (cited in Steinhauser, 1940b, p. 36). This praise serves a bolstering
effect, offering testimony to positive attributes of the First Lady and refuting the
challenge that Allen lacked respect for the First Lady.
Allen concludes her response with a unique image repair tactic: ‘‘And if I do
slip up unintentionally, I hope that you will call me to task’’ (cited in Steinhauser,
1940b, p. 36). Her concluding strategy is particularly effective. First, it has shades
of corrective action. Second, she implicitly preempts future offenses by noting
that future errors would be accidental. But finally, she places Steinhauser, and
presumably, the readers, in a helpful role—to correct her if she commits an error.
If readers accept this turn, they are no longer attackers; they are helpers.
Allen’s image repair efforts were a success—at least in the eyes of the columnist,
Steinhauser, who had originally published the reader’s criticism. ‘‘O. K. Gracie. You
are forgiven,’’ he wrote. ‘‘Not many stars as important as you would take note of a
little verbal spanking. They would just ignore it and go on being bigheaded, which
you are not and never were’’ (cited in Steinhauser, 1940b, p. 26). Steinhauser’s
lines seem to function as a sort of third-party bolstering effort, demonstrating a
unique reversal. Steinhauser’s column was the forum for the original attack; now,
it was serving a bolstering function. We cannot be certain which of her strategies
were more effective. It might have been enough that she responded at all; indeed,
Steinhauser’s (1940b) comments suggest that the mere fact that Allen would ‘‘take
note’’ is commendable.

Discussion and Contributions

Image repair strategy efficacy depends on a number of factors, including the

nature of the grounds for attack (Dutta & Pullig, 2011) and the source and channel
 Compton/GRACIE ALLEN’S IMAGE REPAIR 261

of the message (Liu, Austin, & Jin, 2011). This analysis examined a unique incident
in politics and entertainment, offering a glimpse into historical changing landscapes
of politics, entertainment, and media, and tested Benoit’s typology against a rare
exchange. The analysis also shifted focus to the medium of radio, which has been
underexplored in image repair scholarship.
It is tempting to dismiss Allen’s political rhetoric as inconsequential. The humor
of her presidential campaign was not intended to be taken seriously. And yet, a
broader view of her statements places this celebrity political quip in a larger context
of politics and humor. Modern jokester Jon Stewart (formerly the host of Comedy
Central’s The Daily Show) often emphasizes that his intent is to entertain (see Cave,
2004), and yet, scores of academic studies and analyses point to significant effects
of his humor (see Compton, 2011c, for a review). Stephen Colbert’s (formerly of
Comedy Central’s The Colbert Report) presidential campaign also drew the attention
of media and political commentators, politicians, and yes, even voters (see Jones,
2008). Attention to Allen’s 1940 presidential run serves as a useful reminder that
more modern celebrity political efforts have precedence, and that political humor
can have effects regardless of whether effects are intended.
A few additional specific implications of the analysis are worth noting, including
directions for future research. First, it is significant that Allen stepped out of her
role as politician to respond to the charges. Benoit (1997) has noted that politics
creates a particularly difficult situation for image repair, as opponents often sustain
challenges and political success hinges on positive image. But Allen did not respond
as a presidential candidate. Instead, she resumed the role of an entertainer, which
may have given her more latitude in using a full range of image repair options. We
see similar strategies in modern political/entertainment image management. When
Jon Stewart, formerly of Comedy Central’s The Daily Show, had an extended public
argument with financial advisor Jim Cramer, Stewart emphasized that he was an
entertainer to contrast Cramer’s greater responsibility to offer sound advice and
analysis when assuming the role of a financial expert (e.g., Compton, 2011a).
Second, this analysis offers another example of how mortification can be an
effective image repair strategy. A number of analyses find that mortification helps
repair damaged images (e.g., Len-Ríos & Benoit, 2004). Allen seemed to offer
mortification, but it is worth noting that she did not actually say the word ‘‘sorry’’
in her letter of response.
Third, when the accusation is that someone is attacking, the accused might find
it difficult to attack. Compton and Miller (2011) made a similar observation about
Letterman’s difficulties in responding to accusations that he told an inappropriate
joke about Sarah Palin’s daughter. It was not until Letterman used both mortification
and corrective action that he offered a successful strategy. Allen’s letter of response
reflects such an understanding; she does not directly attack accusers. She does,
however, offer mild shifting of blame, attributing the concern to misunderstanding
and away from a malicious intent on the part of the comedians.
Fourth, Allen was a skilled performer, and those trained as communicators may
find image repair efforts to be easier (Glantz, 2010). Then again, she was attempting
262 Journal of Radio & Audio Media/November 2015

image repair in a different medium than radio, her usual venue. Future image repair
efforts should explore whether the medium used in image repair efforts affects image
repair strategies and tactics.
Finally, this analysis contributes to a growing interest in humor and image repair.
Allen’s image repair rhetoric also reflects how humor can complicate the equation
of image attack and image repair (Compton & Miller, 2011; Liu, 2007). In previous
political image repair instances, humor has been part of the image offenses. For
example, Compton and Miller (2011) analyzed late night television host David
Letterman’s attempts at image repair after telling a controversial joke about Sarah
Palin’s daughter. But other times, humor is used as part of the image repair efforts.
Dewberry and Fox (2012) explored Rick Perry’s self-deprecating humor after his
presidential primary debate memory lapse as his way of deflecting criticism, and
Kennedy and Benoit (1997) observe Newt Gingrich’s use of humor when attacking
his accusers during his controversial book deal. Humor is inextricably bound to a
discussion of Allen—she was a comedian—but as this analysis shows, humor was
grounds for the image attack but was, perhaps surprisingly, absent from the image
repair efforts. More scholarship of humor and image will help identify consistent
patterns—or not—of these unique image variables.

Conclusion

One important contribution of this analysis is that it reminds us that popular

culture, humor, and politics have been interacting long before more recent iterations
such as The Daily Show or The Colbert Report. Allen’s image repair episode, in the
midst of her fictional presidential campaign, reflects how humor can both help
and hurt image-building efforts. Future research should revisit earlier examples of
political humor to better understand these episodes, and at the same time, to provide
a comparison with more contemporary examples of political humor.

References

Benoit, W. L. (1995). Accounts, excuses, apologies: A theory of image restoration strategies.

Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Benoit, W. L. (1997). Hugh Grant’s image restoration discourse: An actor apologizes. Com-
munication Quarterly, 23, 177–186.
Benoit, W. L. (1999). Seeing spots: A functional analysis of presidential television advertise-
ments. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Benoit, W. L. (2000). Another visit to the theory of image restoration strategies. Communication
Quarterly, 48, 40–43.
Benoit, W. L. (2006). Image repair in President Bush’s April 2004 news conference. Public
Relations Review, 32, 137–143.
Benoit, W. L. (2007). Determinants of defense in presidential debates. Communication Re-
search Reports, 24, 319–325.
 Compton/GRACIE ALLEN’S IMAGE REPAIR 263

Benoit, W. L. (2011). NPR’s image repair discourse on firing Juan Williams. Journal of Radio
& Audio Media, 18, 84–91.
Benoit, W. L., & Anderson, K. K. (1996). Blending politics and entertainment: Dan Quayle
versus Murphy Brown. The Southern Communication Journal, 62, 73–85.
Benoit, W. L., & Czerwinski, A. (1997). A critical analysis of USAir’s image repair discourse.
Business Communication Quarterly, 60, 38–57.
Benoit, W. L., & Henson, J. R. (2009). President Bush’s image repair discourse on Hurricane
Katrina. Public Relations Review, 35, 40–46.
Burns, G. (1988). Gracie: A love story. New York, NY: Putnam.
Cave, D. (2004, October 24). If you interview Kissinger, are you still a comedian? The New
York Times.
Clements, C., & Weber, S. (1996). George Burns and Gracie Allen: A bio-bibliography. West-
port, CT: Greenwood.
Compton, J. (2011a). Cramer vs. (Jon Stewart’s characterization of) Cramer: Image repair, late
night political humor, and The Daily Show. In T. Goodnow (Ed.), The Daily Show and
rhetoric: Arguments, issues and strategies (pp. 43–58). Landham, MD: Lexington Books.
Compton, J. (2011b, April). Indecision 1940: Gracie Allen’s (1940) and Stephen Colbert’s
(2007) celebrity presidential campaigns on television and radio. Paper presented at the
annual joint convention of the Popular Culture Association and American Culture Associ-
ation, San Antonio, TX.
Compton, J. (2011c). Surveying scholarship on The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. In
A. Amarasingam (Ed.), The Colbert/Stewart effect: Essays on the real impacts of fake news
(pp. 9–33). Jefferson, NC: McFarland and Company.
Compton, J., & Miller, B. (2011). Image repair in late night comedy: Letterman and the Palin
joke controversy. Public Relations Review, 37, 415–421.
Dewberry, D. R., & Fox, R. (2012). Easy as 1, 2, 3: Rick Perry and self-deprecation as image
restoration. Journal of Contemporary Rhetoric, 2, 1–10.
Drumheller, K. (2011). Responding to crisis representations on film: W. R. Grace goes beyond
A Civil Action. Public Relations Review, 37, 366–372.
Dutta, S., & Pullig, C. (2011). Effectiveness of corporate responses to brand crises: The role of
crisis type and response strategies. Journal of Business Research, 64, 1281–1287.
Glantz, M. (2010). The Floyd Landis doping scandal: Implications for image repair discourse.
Public Relations Review, 36, 157–163.
Goffman, E. (1955). On face-work. Psychiatry, 18, 213–231.
Harlow, W. F., Brantley, B. C., & Harlow, R. M. (2011). BP initial image repair strategies after
the Deepwater Horizon spill. Public Relations Review, 37, 80–83.
Jones, C. A. (2008). The Stephen Colbert problem: The media exemption for corporate political
advocacy and the ‘‘Hail to the Cheese Stephen Colbert Nacho Cheese Doritos® 2008
Presidential Campaign Coverage.’’ University of Florida Journal of Law and Public Policy,
19, 295–323.
Kauffman, J. (2012). Hooray for Hollywood? The 2011 Golden Globes and Ricky Gervais’
image repair strategies. Public Relations Review, 38, 46–50.
Kennedy, K. A., & Benoit, W. L. (1997). The Newt Gingrich book deal controversy: Self-defense
rhetoric. Southern Communication Journal, 62, 197–216.
Len-Ríos, M., & Benoit, W. L. (2004). Gary Condit’s image repair strategies: Determined denial
and differentiation. Public Relations Review, 30, 95–106.
Listen! With Slocum. (1940, March 9). The Washington Post, p. 26.
Liu, B. F. (2007). President Bush’s major post-Katrina speeches: Enhancing image repair dis-
course theory applied to the public sector. Public Relations Review, 33, 40–48.
Liu, B. F., Austin, L., & Jin, Y. (2011). How publics respond to crisis communication strategies:
The interplay of information form and source. Public Relations Review, 36, 345–353.
Nelson garners 4 to 3 margin for prosecutor. (1940, April 10). Chicago Daily Tribune, p. 5.
Pfau, M., & Kenski, H. C. (1990). Attack politics: Strategy and defense. New York, NY: Praeger.
Ryan, H. R. (1982). Kategoria and apologia: On their rhetorical criticism as a speech set.
Quarterly Journal of Speech, 68, 254–261.
264 Journal of Radio & Audio Media/November 2015

Steinhauser, S. (1940a, March 6). Radio fan cautions comedian; Jack Benny barb at First Lady
resented. The Pittsburgh Press, p. 36. Retrieved via Google news: http://news.google.com/
newspapers?idDiyEbAAAAIBAJ&sjidDS0wEAAAAIBAJ&pgD1454,2257406&dqDgracie-
allenCpresidentC1940&hlDen
Steinhauser, S. (1940b, March 19). Gracie in confusion; She’s favorite daughter of that state.
The Pittsburg Press, p. 26. Retrieved via Google news: http://news.google.com/newspapers?
idDrX8bAAAAIBAJ&sjidDJU8EAAAAIBAJ&pgD1399,551700&dqDgracie-allenCpresident
C1940&hlDen
Walsh, J., & McAllister-Spooner, S. M. (2011). Analysis of the image repair discourse in the
Michael Phelps controversy. Public Relations Review, 37, 157–162.
Ware, B. L., & Linkugel, W. A. (1973). They spoke in defense of themselves: On the generic
criticism of apologia. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 59, 273–283.
Wen, W., Yu, T., & Benoit, W. L. (2009). Our hero Wang can’t be wrong! A case study of
collectivistic image repair in Taiwan. Chinese Journal of Communication, 2, 174–192.
Winfield, B. H. (1988). Anna Eleanor Roosevelt’s White House legacy: The public First Lady.
Presidential Studies Quarterly, 18, 331–345.

View publication stats