Communication Studies

ISSN: 1051-0974 (Print) 1745-1035 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcst20

Image Repair on the Donald Trump “Access

Hollywood” Video: “Grab Them by the P*ssy”

William Benoit

To cite this article: William Benoit (2017) Image Repair on the Donald Trump “Access
Hollywood” Video: “Grab Them by the P*ssy”, Communication Studies, 68:3, 243-259, DOI:
10.1080/10510974.2017.1331250

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2017.1331250

Published online: 21 Jun 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 360

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rcst20
Communication Studies
Vol. 68, No. 3, July–August 2017, pp. 243–259

Image Repair on the Donald Trump

“Access Hollywood” Video: “Grab
Them by the P*ssy”
William Benoit

In October 2016, Donald Trump was in the midst of a hotly contested and sharply
divisive presidential campaign. Days before the second presidential debate, The
Washington Post posted a video of Trump “having extremely lewd conversation
about women in 2005.” This video and the firestorm of criticism it provoked threatened
to derail his presidential run. Mr. Trump and his wife Melania Trump offered several
messages to repair his damaged image. This article analyzes and evaluates these image
repair messages concerning Donald Trump’s “Access Hollywood” video. In such a
divisive context, the defense had no hope of repairing Trump’s image with the general
public (Trump lost the popular vote by 2.9 million). Even though he lost the popular
vote, the business magnate won the Electoral College. We cannot say that the “Access
Hollywood” video was solely responsible for Trump’s poor popular vote showing, but it
is clear that this defense did not completely dispel the cloud surrounding him.

Keywords: 2016 presidential campaign; “Access Hollywood”; Misogyny; Donald

Trump; Image repair; Sexual misconduct

American political campaigns are an extremely tumultuous activity. This tendency

was greatly exacerbated in 2016 with the emergence of Donald Trump as a
Republican candidate. He surprised many when he secured the Republican pre-
sidential nomination in 2016. He survived attacks on many grounds, including
accusations that he was a misogynist (see, e.g., Benoit & Glantz, 2017). Hillary
Clinton survived an unexpectedly strong primary challenge from Bernie Sanders.

William L. Benoit (PhD, Wayne State University) is a Professor of Communication Studies at Ohio University.
Correspondence to: William Benoit, Ohio University, Scripps College of Communication, 400 Schoonover Center, 20
E. Union Street, Athens, OH 45701, USA. E-mail: benoitw@ohio.edu

ISSN 1051-0974 (print)/ISSN 1745-1035 (online) © 2017 Central States Communication Association
DOI: 10.1080/10510974.2017.1331250
244 W. Benoit
At the end of the primaries, Republican Donald Trump faced off against Democrat
Hillary Clinton in the general election. No presidential election campaign in recent
memory has been as divisive as 2016. An ABC/Washington Post poll in August
found that “with registered voters, the two are basically tied: Clinton has 59%
unfavorability and Trump has 60%,” the lowest presidential candidate popularity
ratings ever recorded (Collins, 2016, para. 4). However, in addition to their many
detractors, both contenders had attracted ardent adherents and the outcome of the
election remained uncertain until the bitter end.
On Friday, October 17, 2016, days before the second presidential debate, The
Washington Post released a story and uploaded footage that had been leaked, a
video made during a 2005 visit by Mr. Trump and TV host Billy Bush (from “Access
Hollywood”) to the “Days of Our Lives” TV show set (Fahrenthold, 2016). In the
video, Trump makes several remarks about women that were widely perceived as
offensive. The business magnate found himself instantly under severe attack from
people from both ends of the political spectrum. Given the heated context of a
presidential election, attacks from the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, and
from other Democrats, could be expected. Clinton (2016) tweeted “This is horrific.
We cannot allow this man to become president” (para. 1). However, criticism also
rained down on the Republican nominee from members of his own political party.
The 2016 Republican presidential nominee was disinvited from an appearance in
Wisconsin with Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, who said “I am sickened
by what I heard today” (Allen & Schouten, 2016, para. 12). Republican National
Committee Chair Reince Priebus also criticized Trump: “No woman should ever be
described in these terms or talked about in this manner” (Allen & Schouten, 2016,
para. 15). Both Senator John McCain and former Governor Mitt Romney, Republican
presidential nominees from 2008 and 2012, made separate attacks on Trump. McCain
declared that “Donald Trump’s behavior this week, concluding with the disclosure of
his demeaning comments about women and his boasts about sexual assaults, make it
impossible to continue to offer even conditional support for his candidacy” (Bult,
2016, para. 31). Mitt Romney issued this tweet: “Hitting on married women? Con-
doning assault? Such vile degradations demean our wives and daughters and corrupt
America’s face to the world” (Allen & Schouten, 2016, para. 31). Other Republicans
joined the chorus of criticism aimed at Trump. Senator John Thune of South Dakota
declared that “Donald Trump should withdraw… immediately” (Bult, 2016, para. 12).
Carly Fiorina, businesswoman and former GOP presidential candidate, agreed:
“Today I ask Donald Trump to step aside” (Bult, 2016, para. 17). On Saturday, the
day after the video surfaced, Bult (2016) provided a list of 26 prominent Republicans
who disavowed their nominee, a list that continued to grow as time passed. Mr.
Trump faced a serious threat to his image and, consequently, to his campaign for the
Oval Office. A presidential election is influenced by a myriad of messages and other
factors. Nevertheless, these revelations and the firestorm of accusations they provoked
had the potential to destroy Trump’s chances of obtaining the Oval Office.
This article presents a rhetorical criticism of the defense of Mr. Trump’s statements
in this video. First, the approach employed in this analysis, Image Repair Theory, will
 Image Repair on Trump’s “Access Hollywood” Video 245
be explicated. Then Trump’s words from the video will be reviewed. Then messages
from Donald Trump and his wife, Melania Trump, will be scrutinized along with
pertinent statements from the final two general election debates. Finally, this image
repair effort is evaluated and implications are discussed.

Method: Image Repair Discourse

There is a rich literature on the rhetoric of self-defense or apologia (see Ware &
Linkugel, 1973), image repair (Benoit, 1995b, 1997b, 2015a), or crisis communica-
tion (see, e.g., Sellnow & Seeger, 2013). Koesten and Rowland (2004) offered a
theory of atonement, a perspective intended to shift the focus of attention from
self-defense to make amends. Hearit (2006) discussed three potential responses to
guilt: denial, shift blame, and mortification. Seeger and Griffin-Padgett (2010)
proposed a theory of renewal with four key characteristics: It is leader based, it
takes a prospective rather than a retrospective perspective, it offers a provisional
rather than a strategic response to crisis, and it is intended to reconstitute an
organization by taking advantage of situational opportunities. Coombs’ Situational
Crisis Communication Theory (2012) identified five options for dealing with crises:
denial, distance, ingratiation, mortification, and suffering of the accused. Benoit’s
Image Repair Theory (Benoit, 1995a, 2015a) emerged in the midst of this context
of perspectives on reputation defense and identifies message strategies for respond-
ing to accusations of wrongdoing and will be employed to analyze this defense.
This approach identifies five general strategies and several more specific tactics for
a total of 14 potential image repair strategies (see Table 1). Image Repair Theory
takes as a departure point the idea that accusations (or suspicions) of wrongdoing
prompt image repair (Ryan, 1982) and that such threats to reputation have two
components—blame and offensiveness (Pomerantz, 1978). These two concepts
correspond to the concepts of belief and value (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010).

Denial
Denial is subdivided into two specific strategies. First, simple denial can assume
three guises: The accused can dispute that the offensive act occurred, deny that
the accused is responsible for the objectionable act or reject the idea that the act
is actually offensive. Any of these kinds of denial, if accepted by the intended
audience, have the potential to help repair the rhetor’s reputation. Second, those
accused of wrongdoing also have the option of trying to shift the blame else-
where. If another person (or group or organization) actually committed the
offensive act, the accused should not be held responsible for that act. These
strategies focus on the blame component of an accusation (except for rejecting
the notion that the act is harmful, which addresses offensiveness).
246 W. Benoit
Table 1 Image Restoration Strategies
Denial
Simple Denial Did not perform act or act is not I did not take your money.
harmful
Shift Blame Another performed offensive act A madman poisoned Tylenol
capsules.
Evade Responsibility
Provocation Offense was a response to bad act of I broke your laptop because you
victim. didn’t pick me up after work.
Defeasibility Lack of information or ability to Icy road caused me to lose
prevent offense. control of my car.
Accident Mishap Didn’t see your car when I hit it.
Good Intentions Meant well Planned to give you birthday
present but I forgot.
Reduce Offensiveness
Bolstering Stress positive traits, deeds Clinton boasted of first-term
accomplishments (Lewinsky).
Minimization Portray offense as less serious than it I broke your iPhone but it was a
appears very old model.
Differentiation Portray offense as less vile than similar I didn’t steal your car; I borrowed
offenses it without permission.
Transcendence More important values I stole food to feed starving child.
Attack Accuser Reduce credibility of accuser, or suggest Monica Lewinsky lied her entire
victim deserved offense, or divert life.
attention
Compensation Reimburse victim Disabled moviegoers who were
denied admission given free
movie passes.
Corrective Action Plan to repair damage and/or prevent I stained your sweater; I will have
reoccurrence it dry-cleaned.
Mortification Apologize Hugh Grant apologized to
Elizabeth Hurley.
Source: Benoit (1995a, 2015a).

Evade Responsibility
The second general image repair strategy—evading responsibility—has four variants.
A defense can argue the offensive act was a reasonable response to someone else’s
offensive act, so the accused’s response should be viewed as a reasonable reaction to
that provocation. Defeasibility claims that the rhetor did not have the knowledge or
ability to avoid committing the offensive act. A rhetor can explain that the offensive
act occurred by accident. Fourth, a defense can suggest that the act was performed
 Image Repair on Trump’s “Access Hollywood” Video 247
with good intentions. These strategies also attempt to address the blame component of
an accusation.

Reduce Offensiveness
Six different options are available to rhetors to try to reduce the offensiveness of an
accusation. First, a rhetor can seek to bolster his or her own image in an attempt to
strengthen the audience’s positive feelings toward him or her. The idea here is that
these positive feelings will offset the negative feelings that arose from the offensive act.
Minimization indicates that the act in question is less offensive than it appears.
Differentiation seeks to distinguish the act in question from other similar but more
offensive actions. In comparison, the act performed by the rhetor may seem less
offensive to the audience. Transcendence attempts to justify the offensive act by
putting it in a more favorable context. One defending an image can try to attack his
or her accusers. This strategy could reduce the credibility of the accusations and/or
suggest that the victim deserved what happened. Compensation offers to give the
victim money, goods, or services to help reduce the negative feelings toward the
accused. These strategies focus on the offensiveness component of the accusation.

Corrective Action
Corrective action expresses a commitment to repair the damage from the offensive
act. This general strategy can take two forms. The rhetor can promise to restore the
state of affairs before the offensive act or the rhetor can promise to prevent recurrence
of the offensive act. This strategy concerns offensiveness.

Mortification
The last general strategy admits responsibility and asks for forgiveness. An apparently
sincere apology can help restore the rhetor’s image with the intended audience. This
general strategy does not directly address either blame or offensiveness but asks the
audience for forgiveness.
Research has applied Image Repair Theory to defensive discourse in several con-
texts, including investigation of corporate image repair such as Sears (Benoit, 1995b),
AT&T (Benoit & Brinson, 1994), USAir (Benoit & Czerwinski, 1997), Firestone
(Blaney, Benoit, & Brazeal, 2002), Dow Corning (Brinson & Benoit, 1996), and Texaco
(Brinson & Benoit, 1999). Other studies investigate image repair in sports and
entertainment, including Hugh Grant (Benoit, 1997a), Tiger Woods (Benoit, 2013),
Murphy Brown (Benoit & Anderson, 1996), Tanya Harding (Benoit & Hanczor,
1994), Oliver Stone (Benoit & Nill, 1998b), Terrell Owens (Brazeal, 2008), Taiwanese
Major League Baseball pitcher Chien-ming Wang (Wen, Yu, & Benoit, 2009), and
Floyd Landis (Glantz, 2009). Research has examined international image repair,
including Queen Elizabeth (Benoit & Brinson, 1999), the United States and Japan
248 W. Benoit
(Drumheller & Benoit, 2004), Saudi Arabia and the United States (Zhang & Benoit,
2004), China and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, a viral respiratory disease
(Zhang & Benoit, 2009), and the United States and Taiwan (Wen, Yu, & Benoit,
2012). Political image repair is another topic of interest, with research on George W.
Bush (Benoit, 2006a, 2006b; Benoit & Henson, 2009), Ronald Reagan (Benoit, Gulli-
for, & Panici, 1991), Clarence Thomas (Benoit & Nill, 1998a), Chris Christie (Benoit,
2015b), Gary Condit (Len-Rios & Benoit, 2004), Bill Clinton (Blaney & Benoit, 2001),
Barack Obama (Benoit, 2013, 2016), Newt Gingrich (Kennedy & Benoit, 1997),
Kenneth Starr (Benoit & McHale, 1999), Eric Shinseki (Benoit, in press), and National
Public Radio (NPR; Benoit, 2011; see also, Benoit, 1982, 1988). This article uses the
strategies identified by Image Repair Theory as a critical lens to analyze Trump’s
discourse.

Trump’s Words from “Access Hollywood”

Ryan (1982) argues convincingly that we must understand the accusations before
analyzing a defense. Accordingly, this analysis of Trump’s defense begins by
identifying the accusations leveled against him in this case. A rhetor might decide
not to address a given criticism, but it could be a serious mistake to accidentally
overlook a criticism. It is imperative for rhetorical critics to understand the
accusation(s) made against the accused before attempting to evaluate the accused’s
response. Allen and Schouten’s (2016) article reports Mr. Trump’s remarks to Billy
Bush from this video:
“I did try and f*ck her,” Trump tells Bush in reference to a married woman, while
acknowledging he was unsuccessful. “I moved on her like a b*tch but I couldn’t get
there,” Trump says. Later in the video, as Trump and Bush spot Arianne Zucker…
the real estate mogul says: “I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing
her,” adding that he immediately starts kissing “beautiful” women when he encoun-
ters them. “I don’t even wait,” Trump says. “And when you’re a star, they let you do
it. You can do anything—grab them by the p*ssy.” (para. 3–5)
Donald Trump was married to Melania Trump at the time, so these statements could
imply that he was willing to commit adultery. The crudity of these remarks was
congruent with the criticism that he had a misogynist attitude. The accusation of
misogyny echoed criticisms made against Trump in the primary (Benoit & Glantz,
2017) and reiterated in the general election campaign. Mr. Trump was subjected to a
firestorm of criticism—including attacks from fellow Republicans—often repeating
Trump’s own remarks and frequently playing or providing a link to the leaked video.
The Republican nominee’s reputation and his presidential campaign were seriously
threatened, put at risk by his own words.

Critical Analysis of Trump’s Image Repair

This analysis will examine five texts: a brief post on Trump’s Web page by Trump
(October 7), a video tweeted by Trump (October 8), another brief post on his Web
 Image Repair on Trump’s “Access Hollywood” Video 249
page from his wife Melania Trump (October 8), and statements made by Trump in
the second (October 9) and third (October 20) presidential debates. The blame
component of the accusation could not be disputed in this case because the video
clearly demonstrated that Mr. Trump made these comments. The image repair
discourse perforce had to contest the question of offensiveness of his words.

Trump’s Initial Statement

His initial statement employed three strategies (Trump, 2016a, para. 1). First, he used
transcendence in two discrete ways. He declared that his statement was merely “locker
room banter, a private conversation.” This statement suggested that Trump’s right to
privacy undermined the accusations. Then he observed that “Bill Clinton has said far
worse to me on the golf course—not even close.” These statements propose two
different contexts for interpreting his remarks: private conversations and Bill Clinton’s
remarks on the golf course. It also employed minimization noting that these utter-
ances occurred “many years ago.” Presumably, this defense implies that these state-
ments no longer reflect Trump’s attitudes. Finally, the initial statement employed
mortification: “I apologize if anyone was offended.” This discourse was brief and only
marginally apologetic.

Trump’s Video Tweet

The second stage of the image repair effort emerged in a video posted to Trump’s
Twitter feed the next day (Trump, 2016b, para. 1). His revised defense employed
multiple strategies: mortification, differentiation, transcendence, minimization, attack
accuser, and corrective action.
One strategy employed in the second phase was mortification. Trump dropped his
conditional apology (“if”) and declared that “I’ve said and done things I regret. And
the words released today on this more than a decade old video are one of them…. I
said it, I was wrong, and I apologize” (Trump, 2016b, para. 2) This is a straightforward
apology. He said he regrets his action, admits his behavior is wrong and apologizes.
Although no agreement exists in the literature about which elements are essential to
an apology (Benoit, 2015a), most would agree these statements qualify as an apology.
This message repeats his use of minimization (an old video). He also used another
form of minimization, attempting to lower his audience’s expectations about his
behavior: “I’ve never said I was a perfect person nor pretended to be someone that
I’m not.” This statement suggests that the audience should have lower expectations for
his behavior because he did not claim perfection, helping reduce the offensiveness of
Trump’s statements from the video.
Differentiation cropped up in two distinct forms. First, he differentiated between
the words he spoke and his essential character: “Anyone who knows me knows these
words don’t reflect who I am.” He also worked to differentiate his words from the
deeds of others: “[T]here is a big difference between the words and actions of other
250 W. Benoit
people. Bill Clinton has actually abused women and Hillary has bullied, attacked,
shamed, and intimidated his victims.” Trump argues that his words are less offensive
than Bill Clinton’s and Hillary Clinton’s actions. These criticisms of his opponent and
her husband also function to attack his accuser. This strategy worked to deflect
attention away from the attacks on Trump.
Transcendence was also used to suggest that there are more important issues
that people ought to focus on instead of this video. He argued that “This is nothing
more than a distraction from the important issues we’re facing today. We are
losing our jobs, we’re less safe than we were eight years ago, and Washington is
totally broken. Hillary Clinton and her kind have run our country into the
ground.” He elaborated the problems we face today: “I’ve spent time with grieving
mothers who’ve lost their children, laid off workers whose jobs have gone to other
countries and people from all walks of life who just want a better future” that are,
Trump suggests, much more important than his statements in this video. A bit of
bolstering can also be seen here as Trump reports that he has spent time with
people who are suffering.
Finally, Trump employs of corrective action: “I pledge to be a better man
tomorrow and never, ever let you down” (para. 4). He could not take back the
words he spoke in the video but he could promise not to repeat the offense. He
asserts here that he will never behave this way again and promises that he will not
disappoint his supporters.

Melania Trump’s Statement

Melania Trump’s statement (2016, para. 1) utilized four strategies: apology, differ-
entiation, transcendence, and bolstering. It began by observing that “the words my
husband used are unacceptable and offensive to me.” This remark does not enact an
image repair strategy: It functions to enhance her credibility, suggesting that she was
reasonable and not merely offering a knee-jerk defense. Then she told the audience
that she accepted his apology: “I hope people will accept his apology, as I have.” This
statement explicitly urged people to accept his apology. Because she was a victim of
his words (her husband’s remarks could have embarrassed her and they implied that
he might commit adultery), her willingness to accept his apology could have been a
point in her husband’s favor.
Melania Trump also used differentiation in her statement, asserting that his
statement “does not represent the man that I know.” This remark echoed
Trump’s statement that “these words don’t reflect who I am.” This defense does
not deny that he did say these things (and, of course, there was video evidence
that he had said them), but it tries to differentiate these words from his “true”
nature.
She also employed transcendence, suggesting that we should “focus on the
important issues facing our nation and the world” (para. 1). Again, Melania
Trump’s defense parallels her husband’s (second) defense in which he said, “This
 Image Repair on Trump’s “Access Hollywood” Video 251
is nothing more than a distraction from the important issues we’re facing today.”
The audience should focus on issues that really matter, not on these statements
from Mr. Trump.
Finally, Melania Trump’s statement included an instance of bolstering. She
declared that her husband “has the heart and mind of a leader.” This strategy attempts
to offset an offensive act with other, favorable qualities of the accused. Of course, some
could take a defense from the accused’s spouse with a grain of salt.

Trump’s Defense in the Second Presidential Debate

Trump’s defense advanced five image repair strategies in the second debate (Trump,
2016c): mortification, differentiation, transcendence, bolstering, and attack the accu-
ser. His defense on Monday actually started before the debate itself began. He held a
predebate press conference with women who had accused Bill Clinton of sexual
misconduct (Alberta & Levinson, 2016). This was an instance of attacking the accuser,
attempting to deflect attention away from the criticisms of Trump arising from the
video tape.
One strategy employed in the debate itself is mortification. Trump admitted that
“I’ve said things” and “I’m embarrassed by it” (2016c, para. 25). He reiterated his
expression of regret (“I’m not proud of it,” para. 51) and apologized directly to his
family and to the American people: “I apologize to my family. I apologize to the
American people” (para. 16). Trump apologized for “those words” (para. 54). The
statement that he was embarrassed reinforces his apology.
Trump also deployed differentiation in this debate using two arguments. He
appeared to deny making the offensive remarks when he declared “No, I didn’t say
that at all” (2016c, para. 16). However, in response to a follow-up probe, he clarified
his position. When asked if he ever did any of the things he talked about in the video,
Trump said, “No, I have not” (para. 27). So, although he did not deny making the
offensive remarks, he differentiated what he said from what he did. He also returned
to his comparison of his words with Bill Clinton’s behavior: “Mine are words and his
[Bill Clinton’s] was action” (para. 52). He explicitly claimed that his words were less
offensive than Bill Clinton’s deeds. He declared, “There’s never been anybody in the
history of politics in this nation that’s been so abusive to women” as Bill Clinton
(para. 21).
He returned to his defense of transcendence, dismissing his comments as mere
“locker room talk,” a phrase that cropped up six times in the debate (2016c, para. 16,
19, 51). The argument here is that, when viewed in these contexts (private conversa-
tions, Bill Clinton’s behavior), Trump’s statements are less offensive than they seem.
He also employed bolstering in the second debate, maintaining that “I have great
respect for women. Nobody has more respect for women that I do” (2016c, para. 23).
This strategy was not elaborated further here.
The most frequently employed strategy in the debate was to attack Hillary Clinton,
his opponent in the general election and one of his principal accusers. After
252 W. Benoit
mentioning Bill Clinton’s alleged sexual misconduct with several women (presumably
pertinent because he is Hillary Clinton’s spouse), Trump criticized Hillary Clinton’s
actions when she was First Lady: “Hillary Clinton attacked these same women and
attacked them viciously” (2016c, para. 53). Trump referred to his opponent as “the
devil” (para. 65). He characterized her as “lying again” (para. 87), having “tremendous
hate in her heart” (para. 340), and possessing “very bad judgment” (para. 148). He
also promised that “If I win, I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special
prosecutor to look into your situation, because there has never been so many lies, so
much deception. There has never been anything like it, and we’re going to have a
special prosecutor” (para. 67). He reiterated his characterization of his opponent as
being a liar and indicated that she would be put “in jail” under his presidency. His
repeated criticism of Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton’s spouse, could also reflect unfavor-
ably on Clinton, functioning to attack one of his accusers.

Trump’s Defense in the Third Presidential Debate

The situation confronting Trump changed in the days between the second and third
debate. Several women came forward to report that Mr. Trump had engaged in
sexually inappropriate behavior with them. This led Chris Wallace (2016, para. 150)
to say that, since the second debate, “nine women have come forward and have said
that you either groped them or kissed them without their consent. Why would so
many different women from so many different circumstances over so many different
years… Why would they all make up these stories?” Mr. Trump offered two refine-
ments to his defense in order to deal with these new accusations (Trump, 2016d). He
declared that “those stories have been largely debunked” (para. 153) and asserted that
“I don’t know those people” (so I could not have groped them, para. 153). The
business magnate also added to his use of the strategy attacking accusers, criticizing
the motive behind these attacks: “I think they want either fame or her [Hillary
Clinton’s] campaign did it” (para. 156). He reiterated his use of bolstering: “Nobody
has more respect for women than I do” (para. 270).

Evaluation of the Image Repair Discourse

Two things should be noted at the beginning of the evaluation of this image repair
effort. First, it is not sufficient to simply include an image repair strategy in a defense:
A strategy must be developed persuasively to have any hope of being effective. For
example, “I didn’t do it [wink wink, nudge nudge]” qualifies as an instance of denial,
but it is unlikely to be convincing. Second, image repair can be helped or hindered by
messages from others.
Evaluating the persuasiveness of this defense is complicated by the highly
divisive political campaign context. Research has established that Democrats and
Republicans respond to a given message in different ways (Jarman, 2005). In this
particular case, the audience is not just divided by political party affiliation because
 Image Repair on Trump’s “Access Hollywood” Video 253
so many Republicans disavowed their nominee; that is, his reputation was threa-
tened by both Democrats and Republicans. It is unrealistic to expect someone in
this situation could persuade everyone, but convincing even half of his audience
would be difficult.
Mr. Trump had a large number of adherents who did not waver in their support.
However, many other Republicans jumped ship and joined those who expressed
outrage at Trump’s video remarks; his poll numbers began to decline after the release
of this video. A Marquette University poll conducted from Thursday to Sunday found
that support for the Republican nominee declined across a variety of demographic
groups: evangelicals, men, whites with no degree, independents, likely voters, whites
with college degrees, and women (Bump, 2016). His support began to waver.
The mortification in Trump’s initial statement was really only a pseudo-apology.
Although the literature does not agree on a clear set of required components of
apology (Benoit, 2015a), it is clear that an apology should include some acknowl-
edgment of remorse or regret for the offensive action. Trump’s initial statement (“I
apologize if anyone was offended,” emphasis added) is conditional (“if”); it fails to
concede any wrongdoing on Trump’s part. He may have recognized its inadequacy
because later that day he released a video with a more fully developed apology. His
wife’s statement that she accepted his apology—and Mr. and Mrs. Trump’s use of
bolstering—reinforced his defense.
Minimization (the remarks occurred years ago) was also unlikely to help very
much: The fact that the attacks employed a video featuring Mr. Trump making
these potentially offensive remarks endowed the accusations with presence (Perelman
& Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1969), making these newly discovered statements seem current.
The additional accusations about Trump’s alleged sexual misconduct that surfaced
between the last two debates also worked against this image repair effort. Reducing
expectations, another form of minimization, has been found to help image repair in
other cases (Benoit, 2014, 2015b).
Trump’s use of differentiation (he said offensive things but did not actually engage
in the acts he talked about) was a useful argument, although it was weakened by the
succession of women who alleged other instances of inappropriate behavior by Trump
(an illustration of the idea that an image repair effort is influenced by other messages).
This case had similarities to the accusations against Bill Cosby, which mounted over
time as more alleged victims came forward (see, e.g., Carter, Bowley, & Manley, 2014).
Arguing that his words were less offensive than Bill Clinton’s deeds (differentia-
tion) was another strategy that may have helped the defense. However, complaints
about Bill Clinton were old news. The argument that we should pay attention to more
important issues (another instance of transcendence) was another element of the
defense that may have helped the defense.
Attacking accuser was an interesting aspect of Trump’s defense. Criticisms of his
accusers’ motives in the third debate are an attempt to reduce the credibility of their
accusations and this use of attack accuser is nothing new (see, e.g., Benoit, 2011;
Benoit & Nill, 1998b; Furgerson & Benoit, 2013). Heretofore attack accuser has been
said to either reduce the credibility of the accusations (as just mentioned) or to suggest
254 W. Benoit
that the victim deserved what happened. Trump’s use of attack accuser, particularly in
the second debate, served a third purpose. Calling her the devil, a liar, and a person
whose heart is filled with hate, along with making the threat to put her in jail appeared
to be attempts to deflect attention away from the accusations leveled at Trump. I do
not argue that this is the first time attacks have been employed to deflect attention
away from the accused; however, this use of attack accuser is not widely discussed in
the literature on image repair.
After accusations from other women surfaced, Trump used denial to respond to
these attacks. He declared that these accusations had been “largely debunked.” This
statement (“largely debunked”) is not a particularly strong defense. It is not clear
where they were debunked (other than by Trump’s denials) and the qualifier “largely”
suggests there was some truth in these accusations. His remarks appeared impulsive;
his style here was antagonistic and demeaning.
The addition of a statement by Melania Trump invokes third-party image repair
(Benoit, 2015a). It is possible that several messages from different sources could work
together to improve the chances of successful image repair. However, her statement in
this case was brief and, for the most part, echoed arguments made by Trump, so it was
not likely to provide a big lift to the defense. Her acceptance of his apology and her
plea for others to accept it were helpful to the defense, particularly because she can be
considered a victim of Mr. Trump’s offensive act.
Another contextual factor in the success of this image repair effort was revela-
tions from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). An FBI investigation of
Anthony Weiner discovered that his laptop contained e-mail that Weiner’s
estranged wife, Huma Abedin (a top Clinton aide) received from Hillary Clinton.
On Friday, October 28 (11 days before election day), FBI Director James Comey
announced that “Investigators had found new emails related to the bureau’s pre-
viously closed inquiry into Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified information,
restarting a long-simmering debate over the Democratic nominee’s conduct as
secretary of State” (Allen & Johnson, 2016, para. 1). Days later, Bret Baier of Fox
News reported that “two sources in the FBI” told Baier that “an indictment is
‘likely’ in the case of pay-for-play at the Clinton Foundation” (Hains, 2016, para.
7). On Sunday, November 6 (two days before election day), Comey said there was
no evidence that the newly discovered e-mails merited criminal charges against
Clinton (Apuzzo, Schmidt, & Goldman, 2016). Although Comey eventually said
that Hillary was unlikely to be indicted, his initial revelation and Baier’s report that
sources at the FBI leaked the news of a pending indictment reinforced Trump’s use
of attack accuser. The second statement came after the damage to Clinton’s
reputation had already occurred and may have served primarily to remind voters
of Clinton’s alleged e-mail problems.
Many factors (including Comey’s and Baier’s revelations) played a role in this
image repair effort and the election outcome. Because of the highly divisive atmo-
sphere, this image repair effort could only be persuasive for part of his audience.
Danner (2016, para. 2) reported an ABC News/Washington Post poll, which revealed
that about “seven in ten respondents believe that Trump probably has made unwanted
 Image Repair on Trump’s “Access Hollywood” Video 255
sexual advances on women and only 38% believed his apologies over the Access
Hollywood tape were sincere” (para. 2). However, “just one-third of respondents
made them less likely to support Trump (the same voters already profiled as unlikely
Trump supporters in the first place).” So, many people were not susceptible to this
image repair effort.
Trump won the Electoral College vote and thereby won the Oval Office. However,
the Electoral College is an anachronistic process: It need not reflect the popular vote.
In this case Secretary Clinton won the votes of 2.9 million more people than Mr.
Trump (Krieg, 2016). A citizen’s vote choice can be influenced by many factors.
Trump’s image repair effort may have worked with his base but it did not persuade
most voters.
Some observers may be surprised that Mr. Trump won as many votes as he did.
Many reasons can be posited for his ability to attract nearly 63 million voters. Both
candidates were unpopular; clearly millions disliked Clinton even more than they
disliked Trump. Furthermore, opinions are notoriously difficult to change this late in
the campaign. For example, CNN exit polls in 2016 found that only 13% of voters
made up their mind about how to vote in the last week of the campaign (2016).
Trump appealed to many because he was, and styled himself as, an outsider, in sharp
contrast to his opponent. He also appealed to some voters by eschewing political
correctness, so these allegations may not have seemed equally offensive to everyone.

Implications and Conclusion

Mr. Trump’s remarks are deplorable; if he committed the kinds of acts of which he
boasted in the video, that behavior is repugnant. It is important to call out
reprehensible behavior, whether in words or deeds. Words as well as actions
matter.
An election—particularly a presidential election—is comprised of a multitude of
messages from a myriad of sources: candidates, surrogate supporters, news media, and
other pundits. The advent of social media such as Twitter and Facebook enabled
citizens to participate in the campaign in unprecedented ways using Facebook posts
and likes, as well as tweets and retweets on Twitter. The November election is the
culmination of messages and occurred over months. In this particular case, people had
formed impressions and attitudes about Clinton and Trump for decades (although
beliefs about Trump’s policy positions could be formed only after he announced his
candidacy for president). This case highlights the use of attack accuser to deflect
attention away from accusations of wrongdoing. It also underlines the idea that
messages from others besides the accuser and the target can be important factors in
the success or failure of an image repair effort. It also illustrates the idea that the
nature of the threat to reputation can change, as was the case when additional
accusers emerged; defenses can shift accordingly (see, e.g., Benoit, 1982; Benoit
et al., 1991). This article also underscores the potential importance of image repair
in politics.
256 W. Benoit
References
Alberta, T., & Levinson, A. (2016, October 9). BREAKING: Trump holds surprise pre-debate press
conference with Clinton accusers. National Review. Retrieved from http://www.nationalre-
view.com/corner/440899/breaking-trump-holds-surprise-pre-debate-press-c
Allen, C., & Johnson, K. (2016, October 28). New emails under review in Clinton case emerged
from Weiner probe. USA Today. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli-
tics/elections/2016/10/28/fbi-director-clinton-emails-investigation/92889594/
Allen, F., & Schouten, F. (2016, October 8). Trump apologizes for video bragging about groping
women. USA Today. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/
2016/10/07/trump-washington-post-women-billy-bush-video/91743992/
Apuzzo, M., Schmidt, M. S., & Goldman, A. (2016, November 6). Emails warrant no new action
against Hillary Clinton, F.B.I. Director says. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.
nytimes.com/2016/11/07/us/politics/hilary-clinton-male-voters-donald-trump.html?_r=0
Benoit, W. L. (1982). Richard M. Nixon’s rhetorical strategies in his public statements on Watergate.
Southern Speech Communication Journal, 47, 192–211. doi:10.1080/10417948209372526
Benoit, W. L. (1988). Senator Edward M. Kennedy and the Chappaquiddick tragedy. In H. R. Ryan
(Ed.), Oratorical encounters (pp. 187–199). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Benoit, W. L. (1995a). Accounts, excuses, apologies: A theory of image restoration strategies. Albany,
NY: State University of New York Press.
Benoit, W. L. (1995b). Sears’ repair of its auto service image: Image restoration discourse in the
corporate sector. Communication Studies, 46, 89–105. doi:10.1080/10510979509368441
Benoit, W. L. (1997a). Hugh Grant’s image restoration discourse: An actor apologizes. Communica-
tion Quarterly, 45, 251–267. doi:10.1080/01463379709370064
Benoit, W. L. (1997b). Image restoration discourse and crisis communication. Public Relations
Review, 23, 177–186. doi:10.1016/s0363-8111(97)90023-0
Benoit, W. L. (2006a). Image repair in President Bush’s April 2004 news conference. Public Relations
Review, 32, 137–143. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2006.02.025
Benoit, W. L. (2006b). President Bush’s image repair effort on Meet the Press: The complexities of
defeasibility. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 34, 285–306. doi:10.1080/
00909880600771635
Benoit, W. L. (2011). NPR’s image repair discourse on firing Juan Williams. Journal of Radio &
Audio Media, 18, 84–91. doi:10.1080/19376529.2011.562818
Benoit, W. L. (2013). Tiger Woods’ image repair: Could he hit one out of the rough? In J. R. Blaney,
L. R. Lippert, & J. S. Smith (Eds.), Repairing the athlete’s image: Studies in sports image
restoration (pp. 89–96). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books; Rowman & Littlefield.
Benoit, W. L. (2014). President Barack Obama’s image repair on HealthCare.gov. Public Relations
Review, 40, 733–738. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.07.003
Benoit, W. L. (2015a). Accounts, excuses, apologies: Image repair theory and research (2nd ed.).
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Benoit, W. L. (2015b). Bully or dupe? Governor Chris Christie’s image repair on the bridge lane
closure scandal. Speaker & Gavel, 52, 54–67.
Benoit, W. L. (2016). Barack Obama’s 2008 speech on Reverend Wright: Defending self and others.
Public Relations Review, 42, 843–848. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2016.09.003
Benoit, W. L. (in press). Eric Shinseki’s image repair for the Veteran’s Administration health care
scandal. In C. Liberman, T. Avtgis, & D. Rodrigues (Eds.), Casing risk and crisis communica-
tion. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.
Benoit, W. L., & Anderson, K. K. (1996). Blending politics and entertainment: Dan Quayle versus
Murphy Brown. Southern Communication Journal, 62, 73–85. doi:10.1080/
10417949609373040
Benoit, W. L., & Brinson, S. (1994). AT&T: Apologies are not enough. Communication Quarterly,
42, 75–88. doi:10.1080/01463379409369915
 Image Repair on Trump’s “Access Hollywood” Video 257
Benoit, W. L., & Brinson, S. L. (1999). Queen Elizabeth’s image repair discourse: Insensitive royal or
compassionate Queen? Public Relations Review, 25, 145–156. doi:10.1016/S0363-8111(99)
80159-3
Benoit, W. L., & Czerwinski, A. (1997). A critical analysis of USAir’s image repair discourse. Business
Communication Quarterly, 60, 38–57. doi:10.1177/108056999706000304
Benoit, W. L., & Glantz, M. (2017). Persuasive attack on Donald Trump in the 2016 Republican
primaries. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Benoit, W. L., Gullifor, P., & Panici, D. (1991). President Reagan’s defensive discourse on the Iran-
Contra affair. Communication Studies, 42, 272–294. doi:10.1080/10510979109368342
Benoit, W. L., & Hanczor, R. (1994). The Tonya Harding controversy: An analysis of image repair
strategies. Communication Quarterly, 42, 416–433. doi:10.1080/01463379409369947
Benoit, W. L., & Henson, J. R. (2009). President Bush’s image repair discourse on Hurricane Katrina.
Public Relations Review, 35, 40–46. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2008.09.022
Benoit, W. L., & McHale, J. P. (1999). Kenneth Starr’s image repair discourse viewed in 20/20.
Communication Quarterly, 47, 265–280. doi:10.1080/01463379909385559
Benoit, W. L., & Nill, D. M. (1998a). A critical analysis of Judge Clarence Thomas’s statement before
the Senate Judiciary Committee. Communication Studies, 49, 179–195. doi:10.1080/
10510979809368530
Benoit, W. L., & Nill, D. M. (1998b). Oliver Stone’s defense of JFK. Communication Quarterly, 46,
127–143. doi:10.1080/01463379809370091
Blaney, J. R., & Benoit, W. L. (2001). The Clinton scandals and the politics of image restoration.
Westport, CT: Praeger.
Blaney, J. R., Benoit, W. L., & Brazeal, L. M. (2002). Blowout! Firestone’s image restoration
campaign. Public Relations Research, 28, 379–392. doi:10.1016/s0363-8111(02)00163-7
Brazeal, L. M. (2008). The image repair strategies of Terrell Owens. Public Relations Review, 34, 145–
150. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2008.03.021
Brinson, S., & Benoit, W. L. (1996). Dow Corning’s image repair strategies in the breast implant
crisis. Communication Quarterly, 44, 29–41. doi:10.1080/01463379609369998
Brinson, S. L., & Benoit, W. L. (1999). The tarnished star: Restoring Texaco’s damaged public image.
Management Communication Quarterly, 12, 483–510. doi:10.1177/0893318999124001
Bult, L. (2016, October 8). Here’s all the GOP leaders who dumped Trump over leaked misogynist
remarks: “All women deserve better”. New York Daily News. Retrieved from http://www.
nydailynews.com/news/politics/gop-pols-dumped-trump-leaked-remarks-article-1.2822715
Bump, P. (2016, October 12). Donald Trump’s poll numbers collapsed in Wisconsin after the hot-
mic tape came out. Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/
the-fix/wp/2016/10/12/donald-trumps-poll-numbers-collapsed-in-wisconsin-after-the-hot-
mic-tape-came-out/
Carter, B., Bowley, G., & Manley, L. (2014, November 19). Comeback by Bill Cosby unravels as rape
claims re-emerge. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/20/
business/media/bill-cosby-fallout-rape-accusations.html
Clinton, H. (2016, October 7). [Tweet]. Retrieved from https://t.co/RwhW7yeFI2(@HillaryClinton)
CNN. (2016, November 23). Election 2016 exit polls. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/election/
results/exit-polls
Collins, E. (2016, August 31). Poll: Clinton, Trump most unfavorable candidates ever. USA Today.
Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/08/31/poll-clin-
ton-trump-most-unfavorable-candidates-ever/89644296/
Coombs, W. T. (2012). Ongoing crisis communication: Planning, managing, and responding (3rd
ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Danner, C. (2016, October 16). Clinton maintains lead in two new polls, but Trump tape impact is
mixed. New York Magazine. Retrieved from http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/10/
clinton-holds-lead-in-new-polls-but-trump-tape-impact-mixed.html
258 W. Benoit
Drumheller, K., & Benoit, W. L. (2004). USS Greeneville collides with Japan’s Ehime Maru: Cultural
issues in image repair discourse. Public Relations Review, 30, 177–185. doi:10.1016/j.
pubrev.2004.02.004
Fahrenthold, D. A. (2016, October 8). Trump recorded having extremely lewd conversation about
women in 2005. Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/
trump-recorded-having-extremely-lewd-conversation-about-women-in-2005/2016/10/07/
3b9ce776-8cb4-11e6-bf8a-3d26847eeed4_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_trump-
tape-404pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach.
New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Furgerson, J., & Benoit, W. L. (2013). Limbaugh’s loose lips: Rush Limbaugh’s image repair after the
Sandra Fluke controversy. Journal of Radio & Audio Media, 20, 273–291. doi:10.1080/
19376529.2013.823971
Glantz, M. (2009). The Floyd Landis doping scandal: Implications for image repair discourse. Public
Relations Review, 30, 157–163. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.09.002
Hains, T. (2016, November 2). Bret Baier: FBI sources believe Clinton Foundation case moving
towards “likely an indictment.” RealClearPolitics. Retrieved from http://www.realclearpolitics.
com/video/2016/11/02/fbi_sources_tell_fox_news_indictment_likely_in_clinton_founda-
tion_case.html
Hearit, K. M. (2006). Crisis management by apology: Corporate response to allegations of wrong-
doing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Jarman, J. W. (2005). Political affiliation and presidential debates: A real-time analysis of the effect of
the arguments used in the presidential debates. American Behavioral Scientist, 49, 229–242.
doi:10.1177/0002764205280921
Kennedy, K. A., & Benoit, W. L. (1997). Newt Gingrich’s book deal: A case study in self-defense
rhetoric. Southern Communication Journal, 63, 197–216. doi:10.1080/10417949709373055
Koesten, J., & Rowland, R. C. (2004). The rhetoric of atonement. Communication Studies, 55, 68–87.
doi:10.1080/10510970409388606
Krieg, G. (2016, December 22). It’s official: Clinton swamps Trump in popular vote. CNN. Retrieved
from http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/21/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-popular-vote-
final-count/
Len-Rios, M., & Benoit, W. L. (2004). Gary Condit’s image repair strategies: Squandering a golden
opportunity. Public Relations Review, 50, 95–106. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2003.11.009
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation, tr. J.
Wilkinson & P. Weaver. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Pomerantz, A. (1978). Attributions of responsibility: Blamings. Sociology, 12, 115–121. doi:10.1177/
003803857801200107
Ryan, H. R. (1982). Kategoria and apologia: On their rhetorical criticism as a speech set. Quarterly
Journal of Speech, 68, 256–261. doi:10.1080/00335638209383611
Seeger, M. W., & Griffin-Padgett, D. R. (2010). From image restoration to renewal: Approaches to
understanding postcrisis communication. Review of Communication, 10, 127–141.
doi:10.1080/15358590903545263
Sellnow, T. L., & Seeger, M. W. (2013). Theorizing crisis communication. Malden, MA: Wiley-
Blackwell.
Trump, D. (2016b, October 7). @realDonaldTrump. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/realdonald-
trump/status/784609194234306560?lang=en
Trump, D. (2016c, October 9). Second presidential debate. In Blake, A. (2016, October 9). Every-
thing that was said at the second Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton debate, highlighted.
Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/09/everything-
that-was-said-at-the-second-donald-trump-vs-hillary-clinton-debate-highlighted/
 Image Repair on Trump’s “Access Hollywood” Video 259
Trump, D. (2016d, October 20). Transcript of third presidential debate. Retrieved from http://www.
nytimes.com/2016/10/20/us/politics/third-debate-transcript.html?_r=0
Trump, D. J. (2016a, October 7). Statement from Donald J. Trump. Donald J. Trump.com. Retrieved
from https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/statement-from-donald-j.-trump
Trump, M. (2016, October 8). Melania Trump Statement. Donald J. Trump.com. Retrieved from
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/melania-trump-statement
Wallace, C. (2016, October 20). Transcript of third presidential debate. Retrieved from http://www.
nytimes.com/2016/10/20/us/politics/third-debate-transcript.html?_r=0
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. doi:10.1080/00335637309383176
Wen, J., Yu, J., & Benoit, W. L. (2009). Our hero can’t be wrong: A case study of collectivist image
repair in Taiwan. Chinese Journal of Communication, 2, 174–192. doi:10.1080/
17544750902826707
Wen, W.-C., Yu, T., & Benoit, W. L. (2012). The failure of “scientific” evidence in Taiwan: A case
study of international image repair for American beef. Asian Journal of Communication, 22,
121–139. doi:10.1080/01292986.2011.642393
Zhang, J., & Benoit, W. L. (2004). Message strategies of Saudi Arabia’s image restoration campaign
after 9/11. Public Relations Review, 30, 161–167. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2004.02.006
Zhang, W., & Benoit, W. L. (2009). Former minister Zhang’s discourse on SARS: Government’s
image restoration or destruction. Public Relations Review, 35, 240–246. doi:10.1016/j.
pubrev.2009.04.004