Final answer:
Zaresky's concern with studies of the effects of presidential rhetoric is that they overemphasize symbolism, neglect visual elements, and lack empirical evidence.
Step-by-step explanation:
Zaresky’s concern with studies of the effects of presidential rhetoric is that they overemphasize symbolism, neglect visual elements, and lack empirical evidence.
Presidential rhetoric refers to the use of language and communication strategies by the president to shape public opinion and influence political outcomes.
Symbolism plays a significant role in presidential rhetoric, as presidents often use symbols and gestures to convey messages and create emotional connections with the public.
However, Zaresky argues that an overemphasis on symbolism can distract from the substantive impact of presidential rhetoric on policy outcomes and public opinion.
Visual elements, such as nonverbal cues and body language, are also crucial in understanding the effects of presidential rhetoric, but they are often neglected in studies.
Zaresky believes that a comprehensive analysis of presidential rhetoric should consider both verbal and visual elements in order to fully understand its impact on public opinion.
Furthermore, Zaresky criticizes the lack of empirical evidence in many studies of presidential rhetoric. To make valid and reliable claims about the effects of presidential rhetoric, it is important to base conclusions on empirical data and rigorous research methods.Overall, Zaresky’s concern with studies of the effects of presidential rhetoric is that they overemphasize symbolism, neglect visual elements, and lack empirical evidence.