The Dole humor myth and the risks of recontextualizing rhetoric

Abstract

What explains the conflict between the media spin, empirical studies, and the common characterization of Robert Dole's 1976 vice‐presidential debate in the communication field? This essay suggests that scholars have recontextualized Dole's 1976 debate performance and evaluated him in a context which differs markedly from the rhetorical situation he actually faced. By recontextualizing Dole's rhetoric, our field has judged his performance unfairly and has propagated what we shall call the “Dole humor myth.” The debunking of such myths is important if we are to maintain the integrity of communication scholarship.