“Look me straight in the eye” the political discourse of authenticity, spontaneity, and sincerity

Polls and Elections Public Perceptions Regarding the Authenticity of the 2012 Presidential Candidates

“…Scholarly efforts to develop a clearer theoretical definition of authenticity in the context of political campaigns have focused on how candidates present themselves to the public as well as the processes by which they work to construct perceptions of authenticity. Louden and McCauliff (, 93) define authenticity as “a correspondence between what is shared and one's actual positions, actual responsibilities, and, most importantly, actual self … In other words, the authentic candidates are those who know who they are and behave consistently with themselves.” In regard to the construction of authenticity, Parry‐Giles (, 212) writes that it “represents a symbolic, mediated, interactional, and highly contested process by which political candidates attempt to ‘make real’ a vision of their selves and political characters within the public sphere.” Liebes (, 499) emphasizes how candidates convey authenticity by playing “the role of someone who really cares—genuine, sincere, spontaneous.” Likewise, Jamieson and Waldman () draw on Goffman's () framework of the “front stage” and “back stage” to conceptualize authenticity as a quality that candidates perform through their campaigns. Louden and McCauliff () furthermore argue that authenticity is conceptually distinct from, if related to, other candidate traits—such as honesty, trustworthiness, and integrity—that political scientists have studied in greater depth.…”

Performance Journalism: The Case of Media's Coverage of War and Terror

“…It is almost superfluous to mention that the idea of authenticity on TV is paradoxical by definition (Liebes, 2001). Authenticity indicates sincere, spontaneous, unplanned behavior, leading viewers to believe that they touch a genuine person on screen.…”

The Relationship of Verbal and Nonverbal Behavior to Political Stature: The Political Interviews of Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon

“…However, Honda's analysis does not address the issue from the point of view of nonverbal transmission of messages, but as an element within the entire context of conflict management in the course of the interview. Liebes (2001) notes that the public feels threatened by expressions of conflict and a clash of opinions and its need for adopting a position; hence, it prefers a pleasant and perhaps even somewhat emotional conversation. In Lippman's (1924) spirit, Liebes assumes that the complexity of the public agenda makes it difficult for the lay listener who is not an expert to follow the arguments and that, moreover, the listener is not interested in taking note of information in these areas at all.…”

“…230 T. Grebelsky-Lichtman Heritage (1985) maintains that one of the characteristics of a political interview is that it does not take place between two participants who are having a dialogue; rather, it is conducted between a speaker and a large congregation of listeners. From the point of view of the interviewee, Liebes (2001) notes that as the political issues become more complex, the ideological distinctions between the political parties are reduced. The public is called upon to show faith in the politician ''because he is credible and means what he says.''…”