Book Reviews
can capitalize on high ratings to promote their programs and electoral chances.) And he uses aggregate data to test theory (especially that of attitude integration a la Norman Anderson) which seems to demand careful study of how people function as individuals. Despite these problems, the study deserves attention. It provides important support, from a new direction, for the agenda-setting hypothesis viewed at a more abstract level (results defined as good or bad rather than in terms of individual issue salience) than has been traditional. Hugh M. Culbertson, Ph. D. Professor of Journalism Ohio University
Craig R Smith and Scott Lybarger The Ratification of the Bill of Rights, 1789-91 The Center for First Amendment Studies at California State University-Long Beach 132 pp.
This is a conservative interpretation of the origins and meanings of the Bill of Bights added to our Constitution two years after the adoption of the original document. As the authors candidly state: “protecting and defining the doctrine of original intent has been a major project of ours since the establishment of the Freedom of Expression Foundation in 1982 and the Center for First Amendment Studies in 1988”. The political cast of the book is also revealed in this sentence: “. . . beginning with the Warren Court’s Mapp v. Ohio decision, the tradition of judicial restraint and original intent were trampled “Today, some in the name of expedience.” They add, in a gross understatement, balance has been restored to the Supreme Court.” In the opinion of many, the pendulum has swung too far to the right, to a “Presidential Court.” This monograph is timely not only in the sense that we celebrated the two hundredth anniversary of the Bill of Bights in December, 1991, but in the sense that debate on the origins and meanings of the Bill of Bights’ provisions is as vigorous and robust today as it was at the time of their adoption. As the authors foresee: “. . . if the road of the Bill of Bights stretches into the past, it also wends its way into contemporary history and beyond. . . We continue to debate its meaning, its application, its intent, and its history.” We certainly do. The elastic, amorphous term, “natural law,” was vigorously debated in the Senate Judiciary Committee during the confirmation hearings on Justice Clarence Thomas. The thrust of the debate there and elsewhere, fueled by Justice Thomas’ many writings invoking natural law, epitomizes the term’s capture by conservatives to buttress rights not articulated in the Constitution. It is true that as the authors assert. “. . . an atmosphere for debate has been established which first assumed
Fall 1992
319
Public Relations Review
that certain natural rights were inalienable and second assumed that reason would rule in the formation of law.” Yet today thoughtful Constitutional scholars eschew natural law as a Pandora’s Box. Former Judge Robert Bork, who knows the Constitution if not public relations, says “Natural law simply means the judge is going to run his own politics into the Constitution.” This monograph is also timely as the Bush Administration’s proposal for vouchers for children attending parochial schools collides head on with the First Amendment. The Bush proposal would surely violate the Jeffersonian doctrine, enunciated in 1801, for “a wall of separation between church and state.” The battle for religious freedom was the first “rights” battle in the colonies, one led by Roger Williams. Such debates reinforce the importance of our basic rightfreedom of expression. The authors correctly believe that the First Amendment to be the most important of the ten that constitute the Bill of Rights, adding, “It is appropriate that it leads the Bill of Rights because it is the foundation of all our other liberties.” Oddly enough, it was the third amendment in the list of twelve amendments passed by Congress and submitted to the states. The first two, involving matters of Congressional selection and pay, were not ratified, thus the third amendment became the venerated First. The authors provide a useful review of the origins of the Bill of Rights, tracing these from our English heritage: the Magna Charta of 1215, the right to counsel granted all English citizens in 1236, the right to bail in 1444, due process of law in 1628, and, finally, the passage of the English Bill of Rights in 1689. However flawed in their enforcement, these laws and the writings of John Locke and others comprise the rich heritage brought to our American Revolution and the writing of the Constitution by our Founding Fathers. When the Constitution was being written and adopted in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787, only George Mason argued for including a Bill of Rights. James Madison, who was highly influential in drafting the Constitution, did not see a Bill of Rights as essential; “his lack of concern grew out of his concept of federalism,” the authors state. Madison would later become a convert and the chief advocate of what became our Bill of Rights. Public opinion demanding such a series of amendments was built during the campaign for the ratification of the Constitution. The Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay, carried the day against the anti-Federalists led by Richard Henry Lee, Patrick Henry, and George Mason. The latter group lost the battle because, according to Smith and Lybarger, “while the rhetoric of these men was powerful, they did not organize or distribute their writings as effectively as the authors of The Federalist.” Historian Allan Nevins termed the campaign led by Hamilton and Madison as “the best public relations job in our history.” Certainly no public relations campaign ever had greater significance for our society-or for the world. But out of the crucible of debate over ratification of the Constitution and the demand for a second convention grew the strong public pressure that resulted in the writing and ratification of the
320
Vol. 18, No. 3
Book Reva’ew~
Bill of Rights. The two-year campaign that led to its adoption by the states was promoted vigorously in press and pulpit. For those who may become involved in current constitutional debates this monograph is a useful reference. The authors provide a helpful Chronology of Ratification and a summary of the debates in Congress on June 8, 1789, when the twelve amendments were introduced in Congress. Dean Scott M. Cutlip University of Georgia Athens, GA
Alan R Andreasen Cheap But Good Marketing Research Homewood,
IL: Dow Jones-Irwin.
1988,
$24.95
During these lean years why spend valuable public relations dollars on expensive polls and surveys when one is surrounded by many different types of in-house archival data waiting to be analyzed? The author gives practical suggestions on how to do this. That is a quick summary of this book marketed to managers who want market research but can’t afford it. Andreasen explains in great detail what to do with the data and where to find it. He said (we) are surrounded by reports, complaint files, sales and customer information and even letters to the editor in trade and consumer publications. In addition he suggested taking advantage of the plentiful supply of fkee data available at nearby libraries and government agencies. The University of Connecticut marketing professor has abstracted a lifetime of experience both in business and the academic worlds into this 281 page Cheap But Good Marbeting Research. The book contains many practical but inexpensive methods for gathering research data with use of statistical discipline. Here are some examples: u
analyze existing data . . . (found in) a gold mine of data’... simply . lying about as archives waiting to be milked for their marketing and managerial insights.” “pseudo-experiments . . . sales data. . . did a competitor’s ad campaign reduce sales . . . a little, a lot or not at all?” are other examples. Field sales reports and complaint records are additional sources along with letters to the editor. He said Time Magazine analyzed 51,027 reader letters in 1983 for the prior year as another example of existing data for research.
Fall 1992
321