Watch this video:
(Doesn't it make you the tiniest bit angry that we go to school for four years to learn about media, and then someone gives this knuckle-head a job?!)
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Role of Talk Shows in the Campaign
Talk show appearances played a big role in this past presidential campaign. From Barack Obama appearing on the Daily Show and Bill O’Reilly, to John McCain making appearances on The View and David Letterman, the candidates tried their best to be seen and heard by the most people. There appearances on these shows would then be replayed the next day on all the 24 hour news networks, and instantly posted on sites such as YouTube for viewers who might have missed the shows. The question is do these talk show appearances actually gain the candidates votes, or are they merely just a way for the candidate to get as much airtime as possible.
The campaign in 1992 showed Bill Clinton, George Bush, and Ross Perot all make use of many talk show appearances in order for them to get through to the American people. In the readings we had for this week, Diamond writes that, “Clinton, Perot, and, belatedly, George Bush, and their running mates, made thirty-nine separate appearances on Larry King Live, CBS This Morning, Good Morning America, Today, and the syndicated talk shows from September 1 to October 19 (2).” These appearances seemed to show a shift from candidates using hard news outlets as a primary resource for them gaining voter’s attention, and as Diamond wrote, “the mainstream press made up of ABC, NBC, CBS, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, Time, Newsweek et al.-became consumers of the "products" created by the soft shows, along with the rest of us. (1)” These outlets who used to be the main providers of news and information now had to use clips and quotes from these talk show appearances in order to provide their audiences with the information that they wanted.
The use of talk shows did not stop for the Clinton administration after they were elected. In 1994, Clinton made an appearance on MTV for a question and answer segment with teens. The administration was hoping that the appearance would be “a chance to build support for the administration's crime bill, then under consideration in the Congress, as well as an opportunity to buff Clinton's image as a leader in touch with America's youth (Diamond, 62).”
Vice President Al Gore also made talk show appearances, including one on the David Letterman show, where, “some 19 million viewers watched as Gore and Letterman donned safety goggles and the vice president smashed an ashtray with a hammer as a demonstration of the craziness of federal regulations (Diamond, 61)” These appearances by the President and Vice President were made in an effort to raise the President’s approval ratings, in anticipation of the 1996 election.
This year’s campaign saw both candidates trying to reach out to all audiences and demographics. This appearance by John McCain on The View gathered much attention in McCain’s hopes to reach out to the show’s core demographic of women: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyQpmN-nH64
Barack Obama’s appearance on conservative talk show host Bill O’reilly’s show also gathered much attention, as Obama hoped to sway O’reilly’s core demographic to his side: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5rfc54il6Q
The question though is whether these talk show appearances really play a big role in the candidates winning elections. Certainly the case can be made that Clinton used these appearances to his benefit, as he was able to display his charisma and charm to woo television audiences. Do you feel that Obama and McCain were helped or hurt by any talk show appearances they made during this past campaign? Do you think these talk shows make more people want to go out and vote, or just make them sick of the overexposure of the candidates? Do you feel that it is now a necessity in today’s politics that candidates make these talk show appearances?
The campaign in 1992 showed Bill Clinton, George Bush, and Ross Perot all make use of many talk show appearances in order for them to get through to the American people. In the readings we had for this week, Diamond writes that, “Clinton, Perot, and, belatedly, George Bush, and their running mates, made thirty-nine separate appearances on Larry King Live, CBS This Morning, Good Morning America, Today, and the syndicated talk shows from September 1 to October 19 (2).” These appearances seemed to show a shift from candidates using hard news outlets as a primary resource for them gaining voter’s attention, and as Diamond wrote, “the mainstream press made up of ABC, NBC, CBS, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, Time, Newsweek et al.-became consumers of the "products" created by the soft shows, along with the rest of us. (1)” These outlets who used to be the main providers of news and information now had to use clips and quotes from these talk show appearances in order to provide their audiences with the information that they wanted.
The use of talk shows did not stop for the Clinton administration after they were elected. In 1994, Clinton made an appearance on MTV for a question and answer segment with teens. The administration was hoping that the appearance would be “a chance to build support for the administration's crime bill, then under consideration in the Congress, as well as an opportunity to buff Clinton's image as a leader in touch with America's youth (Diamond, 62).”
Vice President Al Gore also made talk show appearances, including one on the David Letterman show, where, “some 19 million viewers watched as Gore and Letterman donned safety goggles and the vice president smashed an ashtray with a hammer as a demonstration of the craziness of federal regulations (Diamond, 61)” These appearances by the President and Vice President were made in an effort to raise the President’s approval ratings, in anticipation of the 1996 election.
This year’s campaign saw both candidates trying to reach out to all audiences and demographics. This appearance by John McCain on The View gathered much attention in McCain’s hopes to reach out to the show’s core demographic of women: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyQpmN-nH64
Barack Obama’s appearance on conservative talk show host Bill O’reilly’s show also gathered much attention, as Obama hoped to sway O’reilly’s core demographic to his side: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5rfc54il6Q
The question though is whether these talk show appearances really play a big role in the candidates winning elections. Certainly the case can be made that Clinton used these appearances to his benefit, as he was able to display his charisma and charm to woo television audiences. Do you feel that Obama and McCain were helped or hurt by any talk show appearances they made during this past campaign? Do you think these talk shows make more people want to go out and vote, or just make them sick of the overexposure of the candidates? Do you feel that it is now a necessity in today’s politics that candidates make these talk show appearances?
Monday, November 10, 2008
The New Age of Pundits
According to the Handbook of Political Communication, “Today’s news systems in the United States is in the ironic situation of having evolved as an essential tool of government at a time when audiences increasingly mistrust politicians and journalists” (Kaid 283). Throughout this election we saw a lot of people, that aren’t journalists, commenting on what was going on and offering their opinions.
The pundits for this election are very diverse they range in age, race, and gender. According to an article from the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/02/arts/television/02pund.html), the 2008 pundits are very diverse, CNN has Cuban-born strategist and Fox News has a Mexican-American strategist, and black commentators under 40 at CNN have been the “breakout stars” of the election (Lee).
Pundits are also coming from all different places. In a New York Times article about training to be a pundit (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/26/fashion/26pundit.html?_r=1&scp=7&sq=pundits&st=cse&oref=slogin), it says that, “Journalists once had to achieve a certain gravitas before appearing as a political expert, but not anymore” (Parker). One well known pundit is Luke Russert, who was hired this summer by NBC to cover the youth vote. Russert is only 23 and just graduated from college in May 2008, but his father is the late Tim Russert so that helped him get his foot in the door. People don’t have to work as hard to be taken seriously anymore, so the pundits are becoming younger.
According to Kaid, “The news is n a state of continual change, defined and redefined by economics, journalism, technology, politics, and publics” (Kaid 283). Do you think that the change in the pundits is permanent or do you think it was different this year because of how important everyone was saying this election was? Also do you take these pundits seriously? Do you think it’s better for pundits to build more credibility or to start early and learn as they go along?
The pundits for this election are very diverse they range in age, race, and gender. According to an article from the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/02/arts/television/02pund.html), the 2008 pundits are very diverse, CNN has Cuban-born strategist and Fox News has a Mexican-American strategist, and black commentators under 40 at CNN have been the “breakout stars” of the election (Lee).
Pundits are also coming from all different places. In a New York Times article about training to be a pundit (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/26/fashion/26pundit.html?_r=1&scp=7&sq=pundits&st=cse&oref=slogin), it says that, “Journalists once had to achieve a certain gravitas before appearing as a political expert, but not anymore” (Parker). One well known pundit is Luke Russert, who was hired this summer by NBC to cover the youth vote. Russert is only 23 and just graduated from college in May 2008, but his father is the late Tim Russert so that helped him get his foot in the door. People don’t have to work as hard to be taken seriously anymore, so the pundits are becoming younger.
According to Kaid, “The news is n a state of continual change, defined and redefined by economics, journalism, technology, politics, and publics” (Kaid 283). Do you think that the change in the pundits is permanent or do you think it was different this year because of how important everyone was saying this election was? Also do you take these pundits seriously? Do you think it’s better for pundits to build more credibility or to start early and learn as they go along?
Monday, November 3, 2008
Last Minute Campaigning
Posted on behalf of Jackie Risotto:
With so many variables at hand the election is still in reach of either candidate
With the election only one day away McCain and Obama are trying to do last minute campaigning in battleground states. Candidates are urging voters to get out to the polls on November 4th and cast their votes. Since the beginning of Barack Obama’s campaign he has made it clear that he wanted there to be early voting and it may be turning out in his favor. According to an article from USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-21-early-voting_N.htm) the ability for voters to cast their ballots before Election Day could give the Democrats a nice lead in the election. However, the Republicans feel as though the Democrats are wasting their time. Although this doesn’t mean a secure win for Obama, it is not good for John McCain. Many more people are using the early voting option for this election than they did in previous elections. According to Paul Gronke of the Early Voting Information Center at Reed College, “The District of Columbia and 34 states allow early in-person voting. All states accept absentee ballots. Up to one-third of all voters are expected to vote before Election Day, up from 20% in 2004 and 15% in 2000.” Even though the Democrats may lead in the early voting polls, everything could change on November 4th.
With the election so close in various polls, (http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/whos-ahead/polling/index.html#NY_7) the election is in arms reach of Barack Obama and John McCain. Even though Obama is in the lead the battleground states are more important than ever. That is why both candidates have elected to campaign in swing states until the last minute and John McCain really better focus in on Pennsylvania because is things work towards his favor than this state can make or break the election for him. Although Obama is currently ahead in Pennsylvania the Republican National Committee is putting out negative commercials about Obama and his former pastor, an issue that I thought that everyone has moved past a while ago. Does John McCain really believe that negative campaigning at this stage in the game is a good move? The republican committee is also using previous statements from Hilary Clinton against Obama; another low blow. The statement said, “In the White House there is no time for speeches and on-the-job training. Senator McCain will bring a lifetime of experience to the campaign and Senator Obama will bring a speech that he gave in 2002. I think that is a significant difference” (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/02/republican-committee-uses-hillary-criticism-obama-latest-robocall/). While Clinton’s spokeswoman has said that this was not in support of McCain, the Republicans are still trying to spin it in their favor. In “Seducing America”, Hart describes the effects of this new twist in political ad campaigns. It states, “In a sample of 803 political commercials, only 134 (less than 17%) addressed policy questions and only 50 of these latter advertisements (6.2% of the 803) ‘contained specific policy positions’” (55). All of this makes me wonder, with the election literally hours away, why aren’t they leaving positive McCain messages on people’s answering machines? Why is it that throughout this election it seems the Republicans have constantly been the ones to take the low road? According to Handbook of Political Communication Kaid states that, “There is no universally accepted definition of negative advertisements, but most would agree that they basically are opponent focused, rather than candidate focused. That is, negative ads concentrate on what is wrong with the opponent, either personally or in terms of issue or policy stances” (Kaid, p. 157). By the Republican National Committee putting out a televised ad about Obama and his former pastor, they are continuing to negatively attack Obama personally. Could this drive more voters away from McCain? Or could it put negative thoughts in people’s minds regarding Obama right before the election causing them to switch their votes? All of these questions will be answered this week.
With so many variables at hand the election is still in reach of either candidate
With the election only one day away McCain and Obama are trying to do last minute campaigning in battleground states. Candidates are urging voters to get out to the polls on November 4th and cast their votes. Since the beginning of Barack Obama’s campaign he has made it clear that he wanted there to be early voting and it may be turning out in his favor. According to an article from USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-21-early-voting_N.htm) the ability for voters to cast their ballots before Election Day could give the Democrats a nice lead in the election. However, the Republicans feel as though the Democrats are wasting their time. Although this doesn’t mean a secure win for Obama, it is not good for John McCain. Many more people are using the early voting option for this election than they did in previous elections. According to Paul Gronke of the Early Voting Information Center at Reed College, “The District of Columbia and 34 states allow early in-person voting. All states accept absentee ballots. Up to one-third of all voters are expected to vote before Election Day, up from 20% in 2004 and 15% in 2000.” Even though the Democrats may lead in the early voting polls, everything could change on November 4th.
With the election so close in various polls, (http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/whos-ahead/polling/index.html#NY_7) the election is in arms reach of Barack Obama and John McCain. Even though Obama is in the lead the battleground states are more important than ever. That is why both candidates have elected to campaign in swing states until the last minute and John McCain really better focus in on Pennsylvania because is things work towards his favor than this state can make or break the election for him. Although Obama is currently ahead in Pennsylvania the Republican National Committee is putting out negative commercials about Obama and his former pastor, an issue that I thought that everyone has moved past a while ago. Does John McCain really believe that negative campaigning at this stage in the game is a good move? The republican committee is also using previous statements from Hilary Clinton against Obama; another low blow. The statement said, “In the White House there is no time for speeches and on-the-job training. Senator McCain will bring a lifetime of experience to the campaign and Senator Obama will bring a speech that he gave in 2002. I think that is a significant difference” (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/02/republican-committee-uses-hillary-criticism-obama-latest-robocall/). While Clinton’s spokeswoman has said that this was not in support of McCain, the Republicans are still trying to spin it in their favor. In “Seducing America”, Hart describes the effects of this new twist in political ad campaigns. It states, “In a sample of 803 political commercials, only 134 (less than 17%) addressed policy questions and only 50 of these latter advertisements (6.2% of the 803) ‘contained specific policy positions’” (55). All of this makes me wonder, with the election literally hours away, why aren’t they leaving positive McCain messages on people’s answering machines? Why is it that throughout this election it seems the Republicans have constantly been the ones to take the low road? According to Handbook of Political Communication Kaid states that, “There is no universally accepted definition of negative advertisements, but most would agree that they basically are opponent focused, rather than candidate focused. That is, negative ads concentrate on what is wrong with the opponent, either personally or in terms of issue or policy stances” (Kaid, p. 157). By the Republican National Committee putting out a televised ad about Obama and his former pastor, they are continuing to negatively attack Obama personally. Could this drive more voters away from McCain? Or could it put negative thoughts in people’s minds regarding Obama right before the election causing them to switch their votes? All of these questions will be answered this week.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
The Truth is Out There; Can You Find It?
With the elections only two days away I am sure that there are many Americans scrambling to get the facts and figure out who they will be casting their votes for. I am also sure that there are many Americans out there that don’t care for the election, and won’t even try to look for the facts. Why is it so hard to find the facts in this election? Looking deeper into the question I found two different answers to the question.
According to our Political Communication Research handbook the facts are hidden behind the media’s own agenda and political bias. I think we all know the bias stereotypes; fox news is very conservative while most other news channels are very liberal. Throughout the election I have seen stories that favor one candidate over the other, and I know that as an undecided voter it made it very difficult for me to learn the facts. I would always by questioning myself, asking whether what I was hearing didn’t carry a bias. Even when I wasn’t hearing a bias I was wondering if I was hearing the full story as most coverage seems to favor one candidate over another. According to Girish Gulati, Marion Just, and Ann Crigler news coverage has been more favorable for certain candidates, they state: “This does not mean, however, that the coverage has been neutral. Some candidates received more favorable coverage than others. For example, Lichter (2001), Lowry and Shidler (1995), and Zeller (1995) have found that Democrats have received slightly more favorable coverage than Republicans in the last 50 years, yet it has not been unusual in particular elections for Republican candidates to receive more favorable coverage than Democrats” (Gulati, Just, Crigler 239). With media bias and coverage bias it seems to be harder for the voters to get reliable information, however this is just one viewpoint on the problem.
According to Hart we voters are part of the problem; “Not only do we know less about politics, but we also seem to care less. In 1967, 35% of the American people described themselves as ‘very interested in public affairs.’ That same statistic for 1988 was 23%. In 1967, 73% of the population read a newspaper each day; today, that number is 51% and falling” (Hart 55). I myself haven’t been as politically active as I could be. While I have been reading up on the issues on various websites I still haven’t learned everything I can, in fact I wonder if I would be as knowledgeable if it weren’t for this class. I feel that many people feel that way, not only in our class but across campus as well. In fact I worry that many Americans our age are even less politically knowledgeable than we may be. At least I look up the issues from time to time; I am willing to bet there’s a good amount of people my age who don’t even care. So the problem may be our own political apathy, is it our faults for not attempting to seek the truth in the first place? To test the theories I went online to look for two similar articles on two different websites. The websites would be different in that both websites would be branded as “biased” towards a certain side of the political spectrum. I found my two articles on CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/01/campaign.wrap/index.html?iref=newssearchand) and Fox News (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/02/candidates-urge-voters-polls/). Both articles talked about the candidates campaigning in “battleground states”, yet they did tell the stories in a different fashion. The first little detail that I noticed was simply the name placement and who the articles talked about first. On CNN Obama’s name was first in the title and the stories first paragraph talked about Obama; however on Fox News McCain’s name was first and the first paragraph talked about McCain. A simple little switch but it conveyed minor bias. However as I looked through to articles a bias became more apparent. For example, on the top of the CNN article under “Story Highlights” the article reads “Sen. John McCain says northern Virginia is key to winning the state. Sen. Barack Obama: Cheney "delighted to pass the baton" to McCain. Sen. Joe Biden says McCain's campaign has gone "over the top". Gov. Sarah Palin attacks Obama on tactics in Florida” (Cnn.com 1). This would seem to be an example of the media’s coverage bias as the “story highlights” shows mostly negative coverage towards McCain. However the Fox News article showed some bias as well, as the first paragraph of the article read: “Republican John McCain set out Sunday on a dizzying campaign charge through three battleground states, promising supporters a come-from-behind victory just two days before the election. Front-running Democrat Barack Obama looked to land a knockout blow with a swing through pivotal Ohio” (Fox News 1). Notice the word “front running” a negative term that is used to describe Barack Obama in his campaign. Both articles show bias and it seems that there is some validity in the idea that media bias can defiantly hinder our ability to find the truth. However I also took into account this fact: would I have even looked for these articles if it were not for this class? The answer is no, maybe the problem is the fact that I am not seeking the truth as much as I could be.
Now that this election is coming to an end look back at the political knowledge you have or haven’t gained during this election and answer these questions: do you feel, with this election in particular, that it is hard to find the true facts? Is it media bias and coverage bias that hides the truth from us? Is it our own political apathy that hinders our ability to find the facts? Or is it a combination of both that is preventing a lot of us from knowing what we should?
According to our Political Communication Research handbook the facts are hidden behind the media’s own agenda and political bias. I think we all know the bias stereotypes; fox news is very conservative while most other news channels are very liberal. Throughout the election I have seen stories that favor one candidate over the other, and I know that as an undecided voter it made it very difficult for me to learn the facts. I would always by questioning myself, asking whether what I was hearing didn’t carry a bias. Even when I wasn’t hearing a bias I was wondering if I was hearing the full story as most coverage seems to favor one candidate over another. According to Girish Gulati, Marion Just, and Ann Crigler news coverage has been more favorable for certain candidates, they state: “This does not mean, however, that the coverage has been neutral. Some candidates received more favorable coverage than others. For example, Lichter (2001), Lowry and Shidler (1995), and Zeller (1995) have found that Democrats have received slightly more favorable coverage than Republicans in the last 50 years, yet it has not been unusual in particular elections for Republican candidates to receive more favorable coverage than Democrats” (Gulati, Just, Crigler 239). With media bias and coverage bias it seems to be harder for the voters to get reliable information, however this is just one viewpoint on the problem.
According to Hart we voters are part of the problem; “Not only do we know less about politics, but we also seem to care less. In 1967, 35% of the American people described themselves as ‘very interested in public affairs.’ That same statistic for 1988 was 23%. In 1967, 73% of the population read a newspaper each day; today, that number is 51% and falling” (Hart 55). I myself haven’t been as politically active as I could be. While I have been reading up on the issues on various websites I still haven’t learned everything I can, in fact I wonder if I would be as knowledgeable if it weren’t for this class. I feel that many people feel that way, not only in our class but across campus as well. In fact I worry that many Americans our age are even less politically knowledgeable than we may be. At least I look up the issues from time to time; I am willing to bet there’s a good amount of people my age who don’t even care. So the problem may be our own political apathy, is it our faults for not attempting to seek the truth in the first place? To test the theories I went online to look for two similar articles on two different websites. The websites would be different in that both websites would be branded as “biased” towards a certain side of the political spectrum. I found my two articles on CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/01/campaign.wrap/index.html?iref=newssearchand) and Fox News (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/02/candidates-urge-voters-polls/). Both articles talked about the candidates campaigning in “battleground states”, yet they did tell the stories in a different fashion. The first little detail that I noticed was simply the name placement and who the articles talked about first. On CNN Obama’s name was first in the title and the stories first paragraph talked about Obama; however on Fox News McCain’s name was first and the first paragraph talked about McCain. A simple little switch but it conveyed minor bias. However as I looked through to articles a bias became more apparent. For example, on the top of the CNN article under “Story Highlights” the article reads “Sen. John McCain says northern Virginia is key to winning the state. Sen. Barack Obama: Cheney "delighted to pass the baton" to McCain. Sen. Joe Biden says McCain's campaign has gone "over the top". Gov. Sarah Palin attacks Obama on tactics in Florida” (Cnn.com 1). This would seem to be an example of the media’s coverage bias as the “story highlights” shows mostly negative coverage towards McCain. However the Fox News article showed some bias as well, as the first paragraph of the article read: “Republican John McCain set out Sunday on a dizzying campaign charge through three battleground states, promising supporters a come-from-behind victory just two days before the election. Front-running Democrat Barack Obama looked to land a knockout blow with a swing through pivotal Ohio” (Fox News 1). Notice the word “front running” a negative term that is used to describe Barack Obama in his campaign. Both articles show bias and it seems that there is some validity in the idea that media bias can defiantly hinder our ability to find the truth. However I also took into account this fact: would I have even looked for these articles if it were not for this class? The answer is no, maybe the problem is the fact that I am not seeking the truth as much as I could be.
Now that this election is coming to an end look back at the political knowledge you have or haven’t gained during this election and answer these questions: do you feel, with this election in particular, that it is hard to find the true facts? Is it media bias and coverage bias that hides the truth from us? Is it our own political apathy that hinders our ability to find the facts? Or is it a combination of both that is preventing a lot of us from knowing what we should?
Monday, October 27, 2008
Do We Really Know The Candidates?
It’s the last leg of a political election. Candidates are tirelessly campaigning, television ads ring loudly in sets across America, and town halls will soon be busy with the activity of voters, but do we really know our Candidates? Many people say the 2008 election feels like the longest political processes in American history. But even with the extensive coverage it has attracted, I’m not convinced the average American is familiar with the candidate’s policy. Sure, people may know that McCain is old and Obama’s middle name is Hussein but what about their political views? It’s easy to know more about a candidate’s personal life than about how they would govern because these light hearted stories can be found everywhere. Personal information is entertaining, easy to understand, and draws in more viewers than stories about policy. But it’s the news media’s job to educate viewers, and quite frankly I feel they have dropped the ball. Just as an example- When I was interning at a news station over the summer I noticed the producers added a segment called “know your presidential candidate.” It was a 5 minute segment that focused on the difference in policy between McCain and Obama. I thought it was an interesting segment, and a refreshing change of pace for the news media. The point of this story is that I don’t think segments on policy should feel like a “refreshing change of pace”, they should be the norm. Turn to any news organizations political homepage and you will find very few stories about policy. I just clicked on the Fox News political page and learned that “Obama shattered another Record”, “Obama’s camp thinks election is just a formality”, and “Palin keeps mentioning Wardrobe Controversy” but none of these stories tell me anything about how they will lead. (http://elections.foxnews.com/.) Looking back on the past few months, do you think the media focused on stories unrelated to policy and if so, how do you feel this effects the viewing audience?
In Seducing America, Roderick P. Hart says, “Television has given the American people a “sense of knowing” that sustains them during the political blizzard. By making politics personal, television empowers the voter, encouraging him or her to use universal criteria when making political judgments, the same criteria used when choosing a spouse or a golfing partner (52). I agree with Hart. I believe person can feel the “know” a presidential candidate, without knowing a thing about why they are running. Throughout this blog, I have blamed the media for running these “fluff stories” to draw in more viewers, but candidates can take a piece of the blame as well. Presidential Candidates need to control their image very closely. Because of this, they may attack their opponent’s character- shedding negative attention on ‘the other guy’. In The Image is Everything Presidency, the authors Richard W. Waterman, Robert Wright and Gilbert St. Clair write “In [the election process], presidential candidates must control what the media writes about them. If they do not, they may lose control of their image and the way the public perceives them” (128). Although this is true, I feel these “image making stories” have taken over the media leaving people less informed about the issues that really matter. These stories can be very important. They can speak a great deal about a candidate’s character but I believe the media is lacking a balance in the amount of attention these stories receive.
Now that the presidential race is coming to an end, look back on the sort of information you received from the media. Do you think the average American knows more about a candidate’s favorite vacation spot, than about their opinion on healthcare? Also, Do you think image making stories are more popular than stories relating to policy? If so, why?
In Seducing America, Roderick P. Hart says, “Television has given the American people a “sense of knowing” that sustains them during the political blizzard. By making politics personal, television empowers the voter, encouraging him or her to use universal criteria when making political judgments, the same criteria used when choosing a spouse or a golfing partner (52). I agree with Hart. I believe person can feel the “know” a presidential candidate, without knowing a thing about why they are running. Throughout this blog, I have blamed the media for running these “fluff stories” to draw in more viewers, but candidates can take a piece of the blame as well. Presidential Candidates need to control their image very closely. Because of this, they may attack their opponent’s character- shedding negative attention on ‘the other guy’. In The Image is Everything Presidency, the authors Richard W. Waterman, Robert Wright and Gilbert St. Clair write “In [the election process], presidential candidates must control what the media writes about them. If they do not, they may lose control of their image and the way the public perceives them” (128). Although this is true, I feel these “image making stories” have taken over the media leaving people less informed about the issues that really matter. These stories can be very important. They can speak a great deal about a candidate’s character but I believe the media is lacking a balance in the amount of attention these stories receive.
Now that the presidential race is coming to an end, look back on the sort of information you received from the media. Do you think the average American knows more about a candidate’s favorite vacation spot, than about their opinion on healthcare? Also, Do you think image making stories are more popular than stories relating to policy? If so, why?
Monday, October 20, 2008
Backlash of a negative campaign has Powell endorsing Obama
In a surprising turn events that could prove exceptionally damaging for the GOP’s presidential ticket, former U.S. secretary of state Colin Powell endorsed Senator Barack Obama for president. Although he relayed slight feelings of guilt for letting down his party and good friend John McCain to Tom Brokaw on this weekend’s edition of Meet The Press, Powell stressed that at this time in history, the country needs a ‘transformational figure’ much like Senator Obama; “He is a new generation coming onto the world stage, onto the American stage, and for that reason I'll be voting for Senator Barack Obama.”
Amidst praise for the Democratic candidate however, Powell listed several perceived downfalls of the Republican party as well as in the McCain campaign. Among others, Powell’s recent reservations included Senator McCain’s vice presidential selection of Sarah Palin, which has in his view demonstrated a considerable shift to the right for the Republican party, as well as the exceedingly negative tone of the McCain/Palin campaign. As seen in the available video (above), the former secretary of state takes great issue with the McCain campaign’s insistence on associating Senator Obama to Bill Ayers saying doing so has ‘gone too far.’ Now, as Obama holds a steady ten point lead nationally just a few weeks before election day, it looks as though all the negativity of the McCain campaign has worn thin on many Americans (not excluding higher up political figures such as Powell). Is it safe to say that old man McCain has fallen on his own sword in this election? Only a few more weeks to before we find out.
Throughout this semester, we have talked at length about the overall effects of negatively run campaigns - mainly in the form of political advertisements. As many of us are aware, while a vast amount of the existing political communication research suggests negative ads and new coverage results in higher levels of of voter recall, they can have a number of detrimental effects to the democratic process. Concerns of growing feelings cynicism and political apathy as discussed by Hart, as well as noticeable decreases in political efficacy and consequently, voter turn out. Many have suggested that the “very existence of negative advertising has negative consequences in the form of lower voter turn out and an increase in voter alienation and cynicism” (Kaid 174). Further, research also indicates that viewing negative ads puts a dent on citizen’s feelings of efficacy (399). In regards to the potential backlash effects of political advertisements, a large body of research indicates that “candidates who sponsor negative ads my be subject to negative responses themselves-i.e., the negative ads my backfire on them, leading to more negative views of the sponsoring candidate” (Kaid 172). Given the latter revelation, one gains a sense that in recent weeks McCain has taken the proverbial hatchet (no, not a scalpel) to the Republican ticket.
The early media firestorm that resulted from Powell’s Saturday morning endorsement has brought mixed feelings and speculation. While some reports are claiming that Powell's endorsement severely undermines the McCain campaign’s inexperience argument, adding to Obama's image as a man who is in actuality, ready to run the country, others have naturally (and quite obnoxiously) thrown all 52 race cards into the air. Hart would suggest that the successive commentary throughout the media world (especially on television) serves as perfect examples as to why citizens feel "busy" and even "clever" when it comes to the political round-table. "Television," he claims "superintends these ceremonies of cynicism" (Hart 82). Here, on must ask themselves: What would have been the cynical topic of day had not Powell endorsed a man of the same minority race? Additional articles covering the big story can be found here and here. Note that both articles have suggestions of race nicely placed in the center of each piece.
What does the endorsement of Colin Powell do for Obama? How do you think it hurts McCain and company? Is race really a factor here - is it wrong to even suggest it? How much of a backlash effect do you think McCain has suffered in light of his negative campaign and advertisements? Feel free to sound off on any of these important topics and expand on how the negative tone on the campaign has effected your own political feelings.
Amidst praise for the Democratic candidate however, Powell listed several perceived downfalls of the Republican party as well as in the McCain campaign. Among others, Powell’s recent reservations included Senator McCain’s vice presidential selection of Sarah Palin, which has in his view demonstrated a considerable shift to the right for the Republican party, as well as the exceedingly negative tone of the McCain/Palin campaign. As seen in the available video (above), the former secretary of state takes great issue with the McCain campaign’s insistence on associating Senator Obama to Bill Ayers saying doing so has ‘gone too far.’ Now, as Obama holds a steady ten point lead nationally just a few weeks before election day, it looks as though all the negativity of the McCain campaign has worn thin on many Americans (not excluding higher up political figures such as Powell). Is it safe to say that old man McCain has fallen on his own sword in this election? Only a few more weeks to before we find out.
Throughout this semester, we have talked at length about the overall effects of negatively run campaigns - mainly in the form of political advertisements. As many of us are aware, while a vast amount of the existing political communication research suggests negative ads and new coverage results in higher levels of of voter recall, they can have a number of detrimental effects to the democratic process. Concerns of growing feelings cynicism and political apathy as discussed by Hart, as well as noticeable decreases in political efficacy and consequently, voter turn out. Many have suggested that the “very existence of negative advertising has negative consequences in the form of lower voter turn out and an increase in voter alienation and cynicism” (Kaid 174). Further, research also indicates that viewing negative ads puts a dent on citizen’s feelings of efficacy (399). In regards to the potential backlash effects of political advertisements, a large body of research indicates that “candidates who sponsor negative ads my be subject to negative responses themselves-i.e., the negative ads my backfire on them, leading to more negative views of the sponsoring candidate” (Kaid 172). Given the latter revelation, one gains a sense that in recent weeks McCain has taken the proverbial hatchet (no, not a scalpel) to the Republican ticket.
The early media firestorm that resulted from Powell’s Saturday morning endorsement has brought mixed feelings and speculation. While some reports are claiming that Powell's endorsement severely undermines the McCain campaign’s inexperience argument, adding to Obama's image as a man who is in actuality, ready to run the country, others have naturally (and quite obnoxiously) thrown all 52 race cards into the air. Hart would suggest that the successive commentary throughout the media world (especially on television) serves as perfect examples as to why citizens feel "busy" and even "clever" when it comes to the political round-table. "Television," he claims "superintends these ceremonies of cynicism" (Hart 82). Here, on must ask themselves: What would have been the cynical topic of day had not Powell endorsed a man of the same minority race? Additional articles covering the big story can be found here and here. Note that both articles have suggestions of race nicely placed in the center of each piece.
What does the endorsement of Colin Powell do for Obama? How do you think it hurts McCain and company? Is race really a factor here - is it wrong to even suggest it? How much of a backlash effect do you think McCain has suffered in light of his negative campaign and advertisements? Feel free to sound off on any of these important topics and expand on how the negative tone on the campaign has effected your own political feelings.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
The Media and Politics- Best Friends?
“The media plays a substantial role in the development of government. The media gives people access to be able to choose a political party, devise attitudes on government parties and government decisions, and manage their own interests. From newspapers to television to radio to the Internet, the media is the leading factor in political communication and fund-raising. (Media Influence on Politics and Government by Tatum Wilcox)” http://www.helium.com/items/745081-media-influence-on-politics-and-government Wilcox is obviously in favor of the media when it comes to politics- arguing it is imperative to politics. The media is the foundation of political communication and without it there would be very little awareness with regard to politics. Throughout his article Wilcox argues the many importance’s of media but recognizes its bias. “The media remains important since they are the means by which people obtain current affairs both inside and outside of the United States- however bias it may be. (Wilcox 1)” Can the media still be credible even if there is a bias?
There is no argument as to whether the media play a role in the political field, but rather what type of role does the media play? Do you feel it is more positive or negative? “Over the years, some authors have complained that the media’s effects on campaign scheduling and financing have given them an unseemly amount of influence over political affairs. Others argue that television’s modes of visual presentation produce cognitive laziness among voters and thus guarantee information loss in a campaign. (Hart 53)” Do you think that television is important with regard to political awareness? How informed do you think you would be (with regard to politics) if the TV were not invented? Also, What do you feel is the most influential form of medium right now vs. in the 1960s?
Kaid says in the Handbook of Political Communication Research, “All news is a construction of reality. (237)” Do you agree with Kaid? Is all news a construction of reality, or has some forms of medium taken the political game so far that somewhere in between the truth just got lost. Between media bias and truth- bending, how informed do you really feel about politics through the media?
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Is nonverbal communication influencing your vote?
“No matter what a correspondent said about the president, if the visuals were positive then the viewers perception of the president was also likely to be positive” (Waterman et al. 147). This quote explains how President Clinton retained a positive impression on the general public even as the media scrutinized his, at the time, alleged affair with Monica Lewinsky.
Today we consume visuals of presidential hopefuls Senator Obama and Senator McCain almost if not daily. Somewhat recently we watched the two interact with one another at the 3rd and final presidential debate. But what did you really consume, what they said or what they did? Business Week’s William A. Gentry took a look at what they did in Verdict: The Final Presidential Debate.
http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/oct2008/ca20081016_103550.htm
According to Gentry nonverbal communication can make up 93% of the message actually received by viewers and the candidates communicated a variety of things throughout the debate. For instance, McCain’s nonverbal response to the first question conveyed passion, but his lack of eye contact at times showed that he wasn’t listening to Obama’s responses (Gentry 1). Obama eye contact and head nodding showed respect, but he also shook his head no at points of disagreement with McCain’s implying disdain or condescension (Gentry 2). I found the negative nonverbal communication disheartening and even upsetting. At many points during the third debate, you could have cut the tension with a knife. It goes against all the candidates have said about “stepping across the aisle” and respecting each other. I feel this is especially true on McCain’s part. Do you feel the candidates have shown each other respect or disrespect? Why or why not?? How does this impact your opinion of each candidate? What kinds of nonverbal communication would you prefer to see from each candidate? Most importantly, if you turned down the audio on your TV set, which debate was the most interesting? Why?
A debate is about responding to your opponent’s assertions and making your own for them to respond to. That means the candidates spent the majority of the debate responding to one another and the moderator not just verbally, but nonverbally as well. If Gentry is correct in saying that 93% of what came across the TV screen was nonverbal, then debates support Hart’s claim that, “candidates now talk more about their opponents talk more than about their nation’s destiny” (86). I believe this was definitely true in regards to their verbal interaction. What do you think? How about their nonverbal interaction? What impressions did you get about our nation’s destiny from the candidate’s nonverbal communication? What impressions did you get about each senator from his opponent’s nonverbal responses?
Lastly (maybe not importantly), would your vote be different if you only perceived the candidates nonverbal messages? Why or why not?
The 3rd presidential debate can be found in sections on Youtube at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOhtn0SreV8
Today we consume visuals of presidential hopefuls Senator Obama and Senator McCain almost if not daily. Somewhat recently we watched the two interact with one another at the 3rd and final presidential debate. But what did you really consume, what they said or what they did? Business Week’s William A. Gentry took a look at what they did in Verdict: The Final Presidential Debate.
http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/oct2008/ca20081016_103550.htm
According to Gentry nonverbal communication can make up 93% of the message actually received by viewers and the candidates communicated a variety of things throughout the debate. For instance, McCain’s nonverbal response to the first question conveyed passion, but his lack of eye contact at times showed that he wasn’t listening to Obama’s responses (Gentry 1). Obama eye contact and head nodding showed respect, but he also shook his head no at points of disagreement with McCain’s implying disdain or condescension (Gentry 2). I found the negative nonverbal communication disheartening and even upsetting. At many points during the third debate, you could have cut the tension with a knife. It goes against all the candidates have said about “stepping across the aisle” and respecting each other. I feel this is especially true on McCain’s part. Do you feel the candidates have shown each other respect or disrespect? Why or why not?? How does this impact your opinion of each candidate? What kinds of nonverbal communication would you prefer to see from each candidate? Most importantly, if you turned down the audio on your TV set, which debate was the most interesting? Why?
A debate is about responding to your opponent’s assertions and making your own for them to respond to. That means the candidates spent the majority of the debate responding to one another and the moderator not just verbally, but nonverbally as well. If Gentry is correct in saying that 93% of what came across the TV screen was nonverbal, then debates support Hart’s claim that, “candidates now talk more about their opponents talk more than about their nation’s destiny” (86). I believe this was definitely true in regards to their verbal interaction. What do you think? How about their nonverbal interaction? What impressions did you get about our nation’s destiny from the candidate’s nonverbal communication? What impressions did you get about each senator from his opponent’s nonverbal responses?
Lastly (maybe not importantly), would your vote be different if you only perceived the candidates nonverbal messages? Why or why not?
The 3rd presidential debate can be found in sections on Youtube at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOhtn0SreV8
Monday, October 6, 2008
Comedy & Politics - Crossing the line?
Using politics as a source of humor is detrimental to the democratic process, and during the presidential campaign, political comedy has become very main stream. There are many people that actually believe shows like The Daily Show and Colbert Report are actual journalism that is intended to inform the viewer, not entertain them. Even when the hosts address important topics such as the economy or foreign relations, the issue is put aside to make a funny comment about the politician’s age or race.
In the digital age, any mistake or flaw can make it to the web in a matter of minutes and ruin a career just as fast. Politicians must be on guard at all times to not say or do something that would hurt their campaign. While both presidential candidates have said little about the jokes directed at them, Palin has accepted the humor, specifically by Tina Fey of SNL and it seems to have helped her. Several times during the vice presidential debate she made jokes and gave off a more casual feeling. Despite what people say about her inexperience or opinions on issues, many people think she is funny and she is more widely known than her opponent Joe Biden especially with a younger audience.
Young voters will be vital in this election more than ever. Despite low turnouts in previous elections, voters under 30 are expected to be much more active this year. With many sources of media targeting this young audience, it is crucial that there is information available that is coming from a reliable and unbiased source. Comedy is a great way to get people to know that issues and problems facing the country exist, but there is no one bridging the gap between comedy and information. This is probably why myself and many friends find informational political news such as the debates or various speeches by candidates to be uninteresting.
While looking for videos to use for this class on youtube every search about a serious topic would have one or two videos of the actual event and thousands of spoofs or clips of a funny section. Elections of the past have had their humor, with nicknames and slogans being commonplace, but it seems that since the 2000 election, comedy has overshadowed everything else. This may be due in part to President Bush, who has had more slip ups and mistakes in 8 years than most people do in a lifetime. Everyone knows about “strategery” and “misunderstimated”, but who knows what he was speaking about when he slipped up on one word? It is because of this that an entire generation only knows their political leaders from what they see on youtube or comedy central.
Comedy & Politics
Posted on behalf of Ian O'Connor:
Over the past ’08 election there have been more than enough political spoofs. We have all seen John Stewart, Conan O’Brien and Maher. I believe that although they are funny and very true for the most part, it is turning everyone away from the real issues that real people have to deal with. People are so wrapped up in the, did you hear what he said? She said? Kind of deal when I feel like with a lot of things candidates are just being so cautious about saying dumb things, that they bounce around real issues that are at hand.
Why this year more than others have these political spoofs been such a big issue? Is it because more young people have been involved with the election or is it because the candidates and their VP’s are easy to make fun of? For the most part I believe that the candidates have said some pretty unintelligent statements i.e.:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Jf17Yo7hBM
But once again, political comedy is such a big issue at hand, people are so quick to jump to make fun of a candidate that it is such a blown out of proportion deal. After giving that interview with Katie Couric, the only thing that a lot of people get out of that was the fact that Joe Biden thought that there was television in 1929. Although, he had given a very good interview, the only clip that you find when typing in, “Biden and Couric Interview,” on YouTube, all you get is a little clip of his slip of the tongue. I just feel like that sort of political comedy is not needed.
On October 2, John Stewart made a comment about John McCain looking like Galin from Lord of The Rings and saying that he is, “an old man corrupted by his quest for ultimate power.” (5:40)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0_e-1QZOBs
Comments like these I believe are funny and they have no real outcome to the election. Do you believe people should be able to speak their mind like this? And have certain biases, like Fox does?
Most people would agree that both candidates are actually easy to make fun of, Palin specifically in many ways more than Obama. All eyes seem to be on her lately. People coming to the realization, that she does not have the credentials that most Vice Presidents have. In a specific case Palin makes a joke about the age of Joe Biden, stating, “I remember watching him speak when I was like in second grade.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ-65FW9mNc
What is her reason for stating something like this? Is the election becoming somewhat of a joke? Did she say it just because she wants to magnify the fact that Joe Biden is so old and worn out, and she is an up and coming star with a lot of spunk and energy?
In one political campaign ad McCain supported a message stating that Barack Obama was pretty much just looked at as a celebrity, and was compared to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. In the Comedy and Political readings in Chapter 3, page 40 stated that Ronald Reagan was looked at as a celebrity. Would this election and Obama being viewed as a celebrity be comparable to the election in the 1980’s?
In the Comedy and Political readings in Chapter 3, page 56, it stated that the first feature that are shared by all late night political shows, like John Stewart, is that they are all unafraid to say what they want to say. Do you think there should be some sort of limitation on what they are allowed and not allowed to say? Or, is it a positive thing for the election to have comedy shows such as this.
Over the past ’08 election there have been more than enough political spoofs. We have all seen John Stewart, Conan O’Brien and Maher. I believe that although they are funny and very true for the most part, it is turning everyone away from the real issues that real people have to deal with. People are so wrapped up in the, did you hear what he said? She said? Kind of deal when I feel like with a lot of things candidates are just being so cautious about saying dumb things, that they bounce around real issues that are at hand.
Why this year more than others have these political spoofs been such a big issue? Is it because more young people have been involved with the election or is it because the candidates and their VP’s are easy to make fun of? For the most part I believe that the candidates have said some pretty unintelligent statements i.e.:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Jf17Yo7hBM
But once again, political comedy is such a big issue at hand, people are so quick to jump to make fun of a candidate that it is such a blown out of proportion deal. After giving that interview with Katie Couric, the only thing that a lot of people get out of that was the fact that Joe Biden thought that there was television in 1929. Although, he had given a very good interview, the only clip that you find when typing in, “Biden and Couric Interview,” on YouTube, all you get is a little clip of his slip of the tongue. I just feel like that sort of political comedy is not needed.
On October 2, John Stewart made a comment about John McCain looking like Galin from Lord of The Rings and saying that he is, “an old man corrupted by his quest for ultimate power.” (5:40)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0_e-1QZOBs
Comments like these I believe are funny and they have no real outcome to the election. Do you believe people should be able to speak their mind like this? And have certain biases, like Fox does?
Most people would agree that both candidates are actually easy to make fun of, Palin specifically in many ways more than Obama. All eyes seem to be on her lately. People coming to the realization, that she does not have the credentials that most Vice Presidents have. In a specific case Palin makes a joke about the age of Joe Biden, stating, “I remember watching him speak when I was like in second grade.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ-65FW9mNc
What is her reason for stating something like this? Is the election becoming somewhat of a joke? Did she say it just because she wants to magnify the fact that Joe Biden is so old and worn out, and she is an up and coming star with a lot of spunk and energy?
In one political campaign ad McCain supported a message stating that Barack Obama was pretty much just looked at as a celebrity, and was compared to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. In the Comedy and Political readings in Chapter 3, page 40 stated that Ronald Reagan was looked at as a celebrity. Would this election and Obama being viewed as a celebrity be comparable to the election in the 1980’s?
In the Comedy and Political readings in Chapter 3, page 56, it stated that the first feature that are shared by all late night political shows, like John Stewart, is that they are all unafraid to say what they want to say. Do you think there should be some sort of limitation on what they are allowed and not allowed to say? Or, is it a positive thing for the election to have comedy shows such as this.
Comedy and Politics: A Perfect Match?
Posted on behalf of Adrienne Moesel:
Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert were recognizable names long before Barack Obama and Sarah Palin. The humor they bring to the governmental news of the day make politics practically bearable. But nowadays I can’t seem to enjoy it as much, and it’s mostly because I’m distracted by the same thought—is it irresponsible to be getting my politics through comedy shows?
The fact of the matter is that comedy coverage is hard to escape. As one article relates it (found at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27007475/), the vice-presidential picks for both sides have become, as the AP calls it, “the toast—make that roast— of late night television” (1). This includes references to the VP candidates on shows like “Jimmy Kimmel Live,” “The Late Show with David Letterman,” “The Colbert Report,” “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart,” and “Late Night with Conan O’Brien” (“VP Candidates the Toast, er Roast, of Late Night”). With all of this comedic coverage on numerous television networks, I think it’s a good thing that so many audiences can be reached on politics, and people in general really react to humor.
More than just people in general, however, youth voters seem to prefer the comedy coverage. The Pew Research Center, 2004a, discovered from the 2004 presidential election that “young voters are turning to comedic sources for campaign information, rather than more traditional news formats” (Fox, Koloen, and Sahin 213). My position is that it doesn’t matter where the information comes from, as long as we (the youth vote) can receive it. And in the findings of Fox et al., they found little difference between the amount of political substance in broadcast news coverage of the presidential election and the amount of substance in The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (221). Even more than that, “the proportion of stories per half hour program devoted to the election campaign was greater in The Daily Show with Jon Stewart than in the broadcast network newscasts” (Fox et al. 221). So, if Jon Stewart is talking about the campaign for a longer amount of time than the broadcast TV shows, does it matter if the coverage is funny?
As research by Morin and Balz found in Chapter 5 of “Seducing America,” says, “Members of the group [of young potential voters] said that they get almost all of their political information from television” (Hart 101). Now granted, this idea may have evolved a little with the capabilities of the Internet, but there is definitely still truth in it.
So if the choice is between being apathetic towards politics and becoming more aware through comedy, which is the lesser evil? Must all political coverage be boring and straightforward in order to be considered accurate? Do you think that voters are any more misinformed when their political ideas stem from “The Daily Show” or “The Colbert Report,” than from broadcast news shows?
Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert were recognizable names long before Barack Obama and Sarah Palin. The humor they bring to the governmental news of the day make politics practically bearable. But nowadays I can’t seem to enjoy it as much, and it’s mostly because I’m distracted by the same thought—is it irresponsible to be getting my politics through comedy shows?
The fact of the matter is that comedy coverage is hard to escape. As one article relates it (found at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27007475/), the vice-presidential picks for both sides have become, as the AP calls it, “the toast—make that roast— of late night television” (1). This includes references to the VP candidates on shows like “Jimmy Kimmel Live,” “The Late Show with David Letterman,” “The Colbert Report,” “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart,” and “Late Night with Conan O’Brien” (“VP Candidates the Toast, er Roast, of Late Night”). With all of this comedic coverage on numerous television networks, I think it’s a good thing that so many audiences can be reached on politics, and people in general really react to humor.
More than just people in general, however, youth voters seem to prefer the comedy coverage. The Pew Research Center, 2004a, discovered from the 2004 presidential election that “young voters are turning to comedic sources for campaign information, rather than more traditional news formats” (Fox, Koloen, and Sahin 213). My position is that it doesn’t matter where the information comes from, as long as we (the youth vote) can receive it. And in the findings of Fox et al., they found little difference between the amount of political substance in broadcast news coverage of the presidential election and the amount of substance in The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (221). Even more than that, “the proportion of stories per half hour program devoted to the election campaign was greater in The Daily Show with Jon Stewart than in the broadcast network newscasts” (Fox et al. 221). So, if Jon Stewart is talking about the campaign for a longer amount of time than the broadcast TV shows, does it matter if the coverage is funny?
As research by Morin and Balz found in Chapter 5 of “Seducing America,” says, “Members of the group [of young potential voters] said that they get almost all of their political information from television” (Hart 101). Now granted, this idea may have evolved a little with the capabilities of the Internet, but there is definitely still truth in it.
So if the choice is between being apathetic towards politics and becoming more aware through comedy, which is the lesser evil? Must all political coverage be boring and straightforward in order to be considered accurate? Do you think that voters are any more misinformed when their political ideas stem from “The Daily Show” or “The Colbert Report,” than from broadcast news shows?
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Whats so funny?
Since today is Sunday, I bet everyone has already watched, and is now laughing at Tina Fey’s latest impression of Sarah Palin. Discussions have been had over Sunday dinners as to who is better, the person impersonating Obama, or McCain. Comments will be had as to how Jon Stewart did in his comedic recap of the vice presidential debates last week, and Conan will have made one ( or one hundred) jokes at some candidates expense. But has anyone stopped to question, when did politics become a laughing matter?
At least Palin can take a joke. Recently, she reacted positively to Tina Fey’s portrayl of her in Saturday Night Live. http://omg.yahoo.com/news/sarah-palin-responds-to-tina-feys-snl-spoof/13137 So if she can laugh it off, why does political comedy have so many critics? While it isn’t news that any public figure can become comedic fodder, what is it about politicians that get the country so wrapped up, and in a sense brings us all together with laughter? And how potentially dangerous is it that mass media consumers could base their votes on jokes?
According to Chapter 2, Rethinking Civic Engagement in the Age of Popular Culture, political scientist Norman Nie is quoted saying, “ If citizens are home watching television or its future counterpart, they can not be out participating in politics.” How true is this statement? With the flooding of political information found in television these days ( and popularly in a comedic manner) does it go to say that those who engage in political humor are not engaging in politics? How can one divide a media category, from a genre.
While the integral part television plays in most peoples everyday lives is apparent, is it a horrible notion that politics is being incorporated into peoples daily doses of entertainment? I like to think that if comedy is an aid into getting people to think politically – then more power to it!
Pundit television should also be given attention in terms of “irresponsible” political media. Defined in Chapter 3 as, “having grown from the roots of journalism, in particular the practices of interviewing and op-ed writing” ( 28 ) pundit tv is not comedic television, it is still also essential to following the latest news in politics/campaigns. It also should be scrutinized equally to comedic broadcasts, as a lot presented in pundit tv is opinion, or bias.
Chapter 3 states that, “ The local and national broadcast and cable news is also decifient, offering “news” that is manipulative, trivial, and fatuous, so much that reporters have turned reporting into entertainment.” ( 52) I disagree.
What is wrong with that? It is my belief that people are not stupid my nature. One can know very well the difference between comedy, exaggeration, and fact. With these three distinctive definitions in mind, one is then enabled to make educated decisions.
Anyone that will base their vote upon something Jon Stweart made fun of needs to do a lot more than just watch the news. In a still semi-politically apathetic environment – If it takes a few laughs and jokes ( in good faith) to get people interested or involved, I see nothing wrong. In fact, I can not wait until the next SNL episode.
The conclusion in chapter 9 states that “ Reliable information in this era of hyper reality is hard to establish and new political television programs ( through both humor and serious discussions) are just as involved in trying to establish knowledge from what is true and accurate as any other televisual construction of reality.” ( 192) That is all it really comes down to, breaking down fact from fiction, humor from reality, and taking it all from there.
It is true that we live in an age where politics is entertaining. But it is still strange when, all things considered, politics are entertainment. Either way, I cant keep my eyes off of it.
At least Palin can take a joke. Recently, she reacted positively to Tina Fey’s portrayl of her in Saturday Night Live. http://omg.yahoo.com/news/sarah-palin-responds-to-tina-feys-snl-spoof/13137 So if she can laugh it off, why does political comedy have so many critics? While it isn’t news that any public figure can become comedic fodder, what is it about politicians that get the country so wrapped up, and in a sense brings us all together with laughter? And how potentially dangerous is it that mass media consumers could base their votes on jokes?
According to Chapter 2, Rethinking Civic Engagement in the Age of Popular Culture, political scientist Norman Nie is quoted saying, “ If citizens are home watching television or its future counterpart, they can not be out participating in politics.” How true is this statement? With the flooding of political information found in television these days ( and popularly in a comedic manner) does it go to say that those who engage in political humor are not engaging in politics? How can one divide a media category, from a genre.
While the integral part television plays in most peoples everyday lives is apparent, is it a horrible notion that politics is being incorporated into peoples daily doses of entertainment? I like to think that if comedy is an aid into getting people to think politically – then more power to it!
Pundit television should also be given attention in terms of “irresponsible” political media. Defined in Chapter 3 as, “having grown from the roots of journalism, in particular the practices of interviewing and op-ed writing” ( 28 ) pundit tv is not comedic television, it is still also essential to following the latest news in politics/campaigns. It also should be scrutinized equally to comedic broadcasts, as a lot presented in pundit tv is opinion, or bias.
Chapter 3 states that, “ The local and national broadcast and cable news is also decifient, offering “news” that is manipulative, trivial, and fatuous, so much that reporters have turned reporting into entertainment.” ( 52) I disagree.
What is wrong with that? It is my belief that people are not stupid my nature. One can know very well the difference between comedy, exaggeration, and fact. With these three distinctive definitions in mind, one is then enabled to make educated decisions.
Anyone that will base their vote upon something Jon Stweart made fun of needs to do a lot more than just watch the news. In a still semi-politically apathetic environment – If it takes a few laughs and jokes ( in good faith) to get people interested or involved, I see nothing wrong. In fact, I can not wait until the next SNL episode.
The conclusion in chapter 9 states that “ Reliable information in this era of hyper reality is hard to establish and new political television programs ( through both humor and serious discussions) are just as involved in trying to establish knowledge from what is true and accurate as any other televisual construction of reality.” ( 192) That is all it really comes down to, breaking down fact from fiction, humor from reality, and taking it all from there.
It is true that we live in an age where politics is entertaining. But it is still strange when, all things considered, politics are entertainment. Either way, I cant keep my eyes off of it.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Are debates all they are cracked up to be?
As I was watching/listening to the debate (I did both to try to gain perspective on who looked Presidential vs. who sounded Presidential) I couldn't help but think, "oh, that will be a sound bite used by analysts... so will that... and that will be on youtube" and it became sort of a game to me. It seemed as if McCain (although he claims he was concerned only with the financial crisis this week) was well rehearsed on what "sound bites" he'd use, which would then be replayed over and over again to his advantage. He even used the "Miss Congeniality" line twice. What... was he "afraid I couldn't hear him"...?
Due to the propensity for analysts to replay these "bites" and dissect their meaning until they no longer make sense, I decided to focus my attention instead on the buzz before the debate. One msnbc article: Presidential debate becomes must see TV compared the anticipated viewership to a Super Bowl audience. There was so much leading up to it that the actual debate itself seemed, to me, merely satisfactory. As I mentioned earlier, sound bites were all over this event like white on rice. And I was disappointed to see that it played (at times) more like a staged convention. It appeared more like a "pseudo-event" where I was subjected to more b.s. rhetoric; which Waterman, et. al. considers, "is now more often designed to promote a desired presidential image and not to provide leadership for the country" (123). Is it wrong of me to want the full package deal? A candidate who will look me in the eye and spare me the public persona... and answers a question out-right? I don't need all of the fancy political jargon... both of them were guilty of talking to me as if I were another member of the Senate and I'm sorry, as much as I'd like to think so, I'm just not THAT informed.
In the Handbook of Communication Research, McKinney and Carlin speak to the notion of "Debates as Media Events," indicating that, "debate-related news segments are among the most frequent of all campaign stories" (214). That seems hard to believe with this election (since the Republican V.P. nominee has drummed up enough press to last a lifetime), but when you think about just this past week with all of the hooplah surrounding whether the debate would actually take place, it may prove to be true. Not to mention the fact that immediately after the debate the television was dominated by analysts trying to get their two-cents in.
Many analysts called the debate a "draw" afterwards, concluding that there were many punches thrown by both candidates, but there was no clear winner. Perhaps this led to my dissatisfaction? Perhaps I wanted to see Obama catch McCain in one of his many blatant lies? Eh, let's face it... I just wanted McCain's head to pop off. But that's beside the point. I'm sure there were many viewers who got what they were looking for... (were you one of them?)
Did anyone else feel let down by this debate? (By either candidate or by both?) Did watching the debate, or the analysis that followed, make you feel more informed about the candidates' stances on the topics of discussion? And how important are political debates to YOU in terms of helping you select or solidify your choice in a candidate?
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Debates useful or just another television block?
As the rest of my fellow lead bloggers did I too sat down to watch the debates on Friday night and after watching them I felt let down and confused. Being that it was a Friday night I elected to subject myself to watching it again via internet (http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/debates/first-presidential-debate.html).
My understanding about the debate was it was suppose to be about foreign policy and if that is so the candidates do not even start to talk about the Middle East until about 36 mins into the debate. Knowing that our country is in economic crisis right now I can see why the moderator would want to touch upon that but they did they really need to dedicate the first half hour to it? One thing I found very interesting in watching the debates is that I don’t think the candidates really ever answer the question purposed to them. Even the moderator, Jim Lehrer, seemed to be confused during the economic talk as to how exactly Obama and McCain's answers related to the questions he proposed. According to Kaid “debates may not alter the voting preferences of the vast majority…studies have found that among the undecided, conflicted, or weakly committed debates do help these viewers form their voting preference or even change candidate selection” (Kaid 211). While I think debates are very important, the idea that these debates are helping to secure votes for candidates among undecided voters makes me a little uneasy because I feel that the candidates don’t always answer the questions as so much put on a show to dance around the topic by spewing out facts and numbers that blind the view of the fact that they haven’t really said flat out if I am president I will do this_____. Personally I have never really been a fan of mixing television with politics. I feel that we the viewer are subconsciously influenced by candidates about their appearances or what is going on around them which takes away from what they are actually saying. An example of how watching a debate versus listening to it on the radio can best be seen in the outcome of the Kennedy Nixon debates. The viewers who watched the debates felt that Kennedy won the debate while people who listened to it over the radio felt that Nixon won. It has been suggested that people who watched the debates took into account the appearances of the candidates when declaring the winner. I feel that television in a sense has desensitized us to politics. As Hart states “Coat and tie, heels and hose, are no longer needed when watching the president’s inaugural address” (Hart 92) It seems old fashioned yes, but the idea of dressing up and attending the inaugural address has been lost over the years because what’s the point we know it will be on television and we don’t even need to get our of our p.j’s. I suppose the questions I am trying to get to is, are presidential debates really helping to get their ideas and plans for the future out there? And when watching the debates, are we really impartial to the appearance of the candidates if we are voters on the fence?
My understanding about the debate was it was suppose to be about foreign policy and if that is so the candidates do not even start to talk about the Middle East until about 36 mins into the debate. Knowing that our country is in economic crisis right now I can see why the moderator would want to touch upon that but they did they really need to dedicate the first half hour to it? One thing I found very interesting in watching the debates is that I don’t think the candidates really ever answer the question purposed to them. Even the moderator, Jim Lehrer, seemed to be confused during the economic talk as to how exactly Obama and McCain's answers related to the questions he proposed. According to Kaid “debates may not alter the voting preferences of the vast majority…studies have found that among the undecided, conflicted, or weakly committed debates do help these viewers form their voting preference or even change candidate selection” (Kaid 211). While I think debates are very important, the idea that these debates are helping to secure votes for candidates among undecided voters makes me a little uneasy because I feel that the candidates don’t always answer the questions as so much put on a show to dance around the topic by spewing out facts and numbers that blind the view of the fact that they haven’t really said flat out if I am president I will do this_____. Personally I have never really been a fan of mixing television with politics. I feel that we the viewer are subconsciously influenced by candidates about their appearances or what is going on around them which takes away from what they are actually saying. An example of how watching a debate versus listening to it on the radio can best be seen in the outcome of the Kennedy Nixon debates. The viewers who watched the debates felt that Kennedy won the debate while people who listened to it over the radio felt that Nixon won. It has been suggested that people who watched the debates took into account the appearances of the candidates when declaring the winner. I feel that television in a sense has desensitized us to politics. As Hart states “Coat and tie, heels and hose, are no longer needed when watching the president’s inaugural address” (Hart 92) It seems old fashioned yes, but the idea of dressing up and attending the inaugural address has been lost over the years because what’s the point we know it will be on television and we don’t even need to get our of our p.j’s. I suppose the questions I am trying to get to is, are presidential debates really helping to get their ideas and plans for the future out there? And when watching the debates, are we really impartial to the appearance of the candidates if we are voters on the fence?
Do Debates Really Tell Us About Where the Candidates Stand?
According to Kaid, “Perhaps the most often heard refrain regarding presidential debates is the charge that these staged for TV encounters between our major aspirants for the presidency are anything but true debates” (Kaid 219). This quote is somewhat disturbing because of the great amount of public reliance on the debates to inform them of the candidates’ stances on the issues. The debate last Friday night was supposed to have focused on foreign policy, yet conversation came to talk of the economy and the increasingly scrutinized economic bailout plan that. It seemed as though both Obama and McCain were not willing to take a strong stance on the plan either way, or even their plans for helping make the economy better as president. See http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/27/debate.analysis/index.html for more information. There was a lot of talk from both candidates, but not enough said. Since they did not make a real stance either way, on the subject of the economy, this was not a true debate. Also, because this debate was supposed to focus on foreign policy and not the economy, there really wasn’t enough time to devote to this issue and to talk about foreign affairs in such a short amount of time. Foreign affairs issues include the war in Iraq, terrorism, the situation between Russia and Georgia and the United States’ role in it all, etc. These subjects can not be treated lightly with sound bites instead of good, solid answers and plans from the candidates; yet with the amount of time they had, there really wasn’t much time to go in-depth. If it was Jim Lehrer’s choice to include questions about the economy in this debate, then it wasn’t a fair choice to either the candidates or the American people. The issue should have waited until the domestic policy debate. If McCain and Obama wanted to just talk about their stance on the bailout plan, they could have done that separately outside of the debates themselves.
“Common criticisms have included the inability of candidates to develop sustained and in depth argument due to the abbreviated response times, as well as multiple and often unrelated topics raised in a single debate” (Kaid 219). Jim Lehrer, the moderator of the debates, told each of the candidates multiple times that they only had two minutes to respond to his question, then rebuke what the other candidate had proposed. Half of the time, the candidates were talking over each other, making it hard for the American public to hear or understand what the other was saying. Although they do have limited response time, arguing in this fashion is not helpful to anyone. This is hardly enough time to explain foreign policy, a complicated situation indeed. According to Bruce Miroff in the Waterman book, “Television provides the view most amenable to spectacle; by favoring the visual and the dramatic, it promotes stories with simple plot lines over complex analyses of causes and consequences” (Waterman 122). Simple was all we were able to get. Neither of the candidates really could really go in-depth about their view of the United States’ role in the world and exactly how they would change it. Although he addressed the issue that relations between the United States and foreign countries were strained, Obama did not exactly say how he would change that; all he said was that he had a plan. As a concerned voter, I want to know what that plan is, but I will never be able to find out through the debate because it does not allot enough time for Obama to detail a plan for a very complex situation.
What do you think? Some issues you might think about include: Are the televised debates the best way to judge a candidate for the presidency? Do they provide enough information about where each candidate stands? Do you think that the format should change?
“Common criticisms have included the inability of candidates to develop sustained and in depth argument due to the abbreviated response times, as well as multiple and often unrelated topics raised in a single debate” (Kaid 219). Jim Lehrer, the moderator of the debates, told each of the candidates multiple times that they only had two minutes to respond to his question, then rebuke what the other candidate had proposed. Half of the time, the candidates were talking over each other, making it hard for the American public to hear or understand what the other was saying. Although they do have limited response time, arguing in this fashion is not helpful to anyone. This is hardly enough time to explain foreign policy, a complicated situation indeed. According to Bruce Miroff in the Waterman book, “Television provides the view most amenable to spectacle; by favoring the visual and the dramatic, it promotes stories with simple plot lines over complex analyses of causes and consequences” (Waterman 122). Simple was all we were able to get. Neither of the candidates really could really go in-depth about their view of the United States’ role in the world and exactly how they would change it. Although he addressed the issue that relations between the United States and foreign countries were strained, Obama did not exactly say how he would change that; all he said was that he had a plan. As a concerned voter, I want to know what that plan is, but I will never be able to find out through the debate because it does not allot enough time for Obama to detail a plan for a very complex situation.
What do you think? Some issues you might think about include: Are the televised debates the best way to judge a candidate for the presidency? Do they provide enough information about where each candidate stands? Do you think that the format should change?
Presidential Debates: Vital to campaigns or poor excuse to persuade?
After watching the first presidential debate on Friday September 24th, 2008 I found I was asking myself more questions than the candidates were asked. One question that stood out the most was, are debates necessary? Since this year’s election process has been so long and what I believe to be drawn out, I find myself wondering if this year’s debates were actually vital to each candidate’s campaign.
The reason for presidential debates is for the candidates to address the public while being face to face with their opponent/s. The candidates are given a certain amount of time to address questions about the issues they stand f. This allows each candidate to let the voters know how they feel. Each candidate is also allowed time for rebuttal against the opposite parties comments. The purpose is to strengthen supporter feelings as well as to gain supporters.
Since the election season has begun each candidate has made it known where they stand on every issue. From interviews, to town speeches to their official websites they have made it very accessible to voters on their feelings and attitudes towards all of the issues involved in this upcoming election. I just don’t understand while all this information has been out there for the past year or so there is still a need for debates?
The only reason I feel debates may be necessary are for the apathetic people in our country, so they can hopefully take something from the debate and make a decisions to vote for a candidate. However I do not know how effective debates would be to sway these people to support a candidate because they probably would not even tune into the debates. The problem I have is the people watching the debates are the ones who have already picked their candidate and are the party faithful. Those are the people who are going to watch the debates just to see how the candidates react to each other and how they answer the questions and to see who will “win”, meanwhile they will just say the candidate they are in favor of won.
Contrary to my opinion presidential debates prove to be effective on the public. In the Handbook of Political Communications Kaid states, “debates contribute to a more enlightened and rational electorate better equipped to make an informed voting decision,” (Kaid, 205). I can argue with this statement, a voter can research a candidate and watch them speak on television and read online articles and still be able to make an informed voting decision.
With issues constantly being brought up in various media sectors the debates just become a show of who is going to get tongue tied or whose attempts to charm America were better, the issues often get lost. So honestly are these media spectacle of fights and contradictions also known as presidential debates really effective? Well, Lanoue and Schrott state “campaign debates are above all, attempts to persuade—with candidates appealing to citizens for that ultimate prize, their vote,” (Kaid, 209). How much more can you persuade the voters who have already picked you as their candidate! This just reassures my beliefs that debate are not necessary.
In an article I found from the Associate Press, concerning McCain’s plea to postpone last Fridays debate to travel to Washington due to the current financial crisis. (http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/election08/articles/2008/09/25/20080925mccain-obama0925.html) Obama states that now more than ever the debates are vital to the campaign, that McCain should not postpone the debate. Obama states, “this is exactly the time when the American people need to hear from the person who, in approximately 40 days will be responsible for dealing with this mess," This boggles my mind because the American people will be hearing the same thing they have been hearing for the past year!
Are the presidential debates effective for convenience reasons, so voters can turn on their televisions and just hear all the issues at once instead of actually caring and researching a little more? Or are these debates actually effective.
Polls show that Obama is now in the lead (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/) due to “winning” the debate. Did the debates actually help put Obama ahead in the polls again? Could he have swung undecided voters through his debating skills? I personally do not think voters could have been swayed that much by this past debate. I do not think this one night completely changed the campaign to reassure Obama that he will be the next president.
With those last remarks I leave you with the questions still in my mind for you to think about, do you think presidential debates are vital to candidate’s success in winning the election? Do you feel Friday night’s debate informed you about anything you didn’t already know or did you find the information you received was just reassurance?
The reason for presidential debates is for the candidates to address the public while being face to face with their opponent/s. The candidates are given a certain amount of time to address questions about the issues they stand f. This allows each candidate to let the voters know how they feel. Each candidate is also allowed time for rebuttal against the opposite parties comments. The purpose is to strengthen supporter feelings as well as to gain supporters.
Since the election season has begun each candidate has made it known where they stand on every issue. From interviews, to town speeches to their official websites they have made it very accessible to voters on their feelings and attitudes towards all of the issues involved in this upcoming election. I just don’t understand while all this information has been out there for the past year or so there is still a need for debates?
The only reason I feel debates may be necessary are for the apathetic people in our country, so they can hopefully take something from the debate and make a decisions to vote for a candidate. However I do not know how effective debates would be to sway these people to support a candidate because they probably would not even tune into the debates. The problem I have is the people watching the debates are the ones who have already picked their candidate and are the party faithful. Those are the people who are going to watch the debates just to see how the candidates react to each other and how they answer the questions and to see who will “win”, meanwhile they will just say the candidate they are in favor of won.
Contrary to my opinion presidential debates prove to be effective on the public. In the Handbook of Political Communications Kaid states, “debates contribute to a more enlightened and rational electorate better equipped to make an informed voting decision,” (Kaid, 205). I can argue with this statement, a voter can research a candidate and watch them speak on television and read online articles and still be able to make an informed voting decision.
With issues constantly being brought up in various media sectors the debates just become a show of who is going to get tongue tied or whose attempts to charm America were better, the issues often get lost. So honestly are these media spectacle of fights and contradictions also known as presidential debates really effective? Well, Lanoue and Schrott state “campaign debates are above all, attempts to persuade—with candidates appealing to citizens for that ultimate prize, their vote,” (Kaid, 209). How much more can you persuade the voters who have already picked you as their candidate! This just reassures my beliefs that debate are not necessary.
In an article I found from the Associate Press, concerning McCain’s plea to postpone last Fridays debate to travel to Washington due to the current financial crisis. (http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/election08/articles/2008/09/25/20080925mccain-obama0925.html) Obama states that now more than ever the debates are vital to the campaign, that McCain should not postpone the debate. Obama states, “this is exactly the time when the American people need to hear from the person who, in approximately 40 days will be responsible for dealing with this mess," This boggles my mind because the American people will be hearing the same thing they have been hearing for the past year!
Are the presidential debates effective for convenience reasons, so voters can turn on their televisions and just hear all the issues at once instead of actually caring and researching a little more? Or are these debates actually effective.
Polls show that Obama is now in the lead (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/) due to “winning” the debate. Did the debates actually help put Obama ahead in the polls again? Could he have swung undecided voters through his debating skills? I personally do not think voters could have been swayed that much by this past debate. I do not think this one night completely changed the campaign to reassure Obama that he will be the next president.
With those last remarks I leave you with the questions still in my mind for you to think about, do you think presidential debates are vital to candidate’s success in winning the election? Do you feel Friday night’s debate informed you about anything you didn’t already know or did you find the information you received was just reassurance?
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Sunday, September 21, 2008
The Internet: What Effect Does it Have on You?
The New Media, or the Internet, undoubtedly plays a huge role in our lives today. With that being said, the 2008 Presidential Election is no exception to the smorgasbord of information that has been coming our way. Throughout the years, television has been taking the heat on the impact that it has on Americans, particularly focusing on TV and politics. But now, the Internet might possibly be playing an even more pivotal role in this election. As we discussed in last week’s class and heard from the group who presented, advertising, whether it is on the television or the Internet, quite possibly influences Americans in one way or another, whether it be positive or negative. As John Tedesco says in Lynda Lee Kaid’s The Handbook of Political Communication Research, “The Internet quickly transformed the way individuals, organizations, political institutions, and governments communicate and negotiate political information and political roles” (507).
In the article “Record Percentage of Americans Use Internet For Politics, Survey Finds” by Sarah Lai Stirland, it says that at least 46% of all Americans have used the Internet, email, or text messages in some way during this political process. This survey was conducted by a non-partisan group called Pew Internet and American Life Project. The article further explains that the Internet is becoming part of the norm in political participation, from reading the news to people sharing their views. “In this season, just the twelfth year of presidential politics online, there is no disputing the fact that the internet has moved from the periphery to the center of national politics,” writes Aaron Smith, a research specialist and Lee Rainie, the Pew project's director in the new survey.
Bloggers have become quite popular in this election, as there is “The Caucus Blog” on NYTimes.com (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/?scp=1&sq=political%20blogs&st=cse) and the “Political Ticker” blog on CNN.com (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com), as well as citizen bloggers who are voicing their opinion and exercising their right of the First Amendment. It can be said, though, that people criticize blogs, due to a possible lack of credibility or authenticity from these citizen bloggers. Tedesco quotes Glass (1996) in saying that “the Internet offers far fewer clues to its users to help them discern the good from the ugly” (Kaid 522). In addition to blogs, there are so many websites out there that people can view about the ’08 Election. Youtube.com has an array of political videos that can be seen, as well as the presidential candidates own websites, supporter websites, third-party websites, ad campaign websites, etc.
Tedesco says that there are many political observers who are either “optimists or skeptics” when it comes to the Internet (Kaid 507). So where do you think you fall—generally, do you think that the Internet plays a more positive role when it comes to a voter’s political process; or do you think that voters need to be somewhat skeptical when it comes to the Internet? (i.e. blogs and their validity). Also, how have you used the Internet during this presidential election, and how much do you feel you rely on the Internet as compared to other mediums (TV, newspapers, talk radio, etc.)?
In the article “Record Percentage of Americans Use Internet For Politics, Survey Finds” by Sarah Lai Stirland, it says that at least 46% of all Americans have used the Internet, email, or text messages in some way during this political process. This survey was conducted by a non-partisan group called Pew Internet and American Life Project. The article further explains that the Internet is becoming part of the norm in political participation, from reading the news to people sharing their views. “In this season, just the twelfth year of presidential politics online, there is no disputing the fact that the internet has moved from the periphery to the center of national politics,” writes Aaron Smith, a research specialist and Lee Rainie, the Pew project's director in the new survey.
Bloggers have become quite popular in this election, as there is “The Caucus Blog” on NYTimes.com (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/?scp=1&sq=political%20blogs&st=cse) and the “Political Ticker” blog on CNN.com (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com), as well as citizen bloggers who are voicing their opinion and exercising their right of the First Amendment. It can be said, though, that people criticize blogs, due to a possible lack of credibility or authenticity from these citizen bloggers. Tedesco quotes Glass (1996) in saying that “the Internet offers far fewer clues to its users to help them discern the good from the ugly” (Kaid 522). In addition to blogs, there are so many websites out there that people can view about the ’08 Election. Youtube.com has an array of political videos that can be seen, as well as the presidential candidates own websites, supporter websites, third-party websites, ad campaign websites, etc.
Tedesco says that there are many political observers who are either “optimists or skeptics” when it comes to the Internet (Kaid 507). So where do you think you fall—generally, do you think that the Internet plays a more positive role when it comes to a voter’s political process; or do you think that voters need to be somewhat skeptical when it comes to the Internet? (i.e. blogs and their validity). Also, how have you used the Internet during this presidential election, and how much do you feel you rely on the Internet as compared to other mediums (TV, newspapers, talk radio, etc.)?
Youtube: The Ideal Public Sphere?
YouTube is a phenomenon that has taken over the internet over the past few years. Everyone and anyone (with access to a computer) can use YouTube as a place to share their videos, and therefore share with the world their ideas, talent, humor, music, or political views. From the beginning of the 2008 presidential race YouTube announced a new section featuring campaign channels called, “You Choose ‘08” (http://www.youtube.com/youchoose). Each of the candidates had their own channel where their party & supporters are able to communicate to potential voters. They also have a You Choose Playlist, where the best or most popular political videos of the week are featured. The voters can then give their feedback and converse online with others. This gives people the opportunity to select which issues are most important to them and directly go to these types of sites to view videos of the candidates and what they have to say. In the article “YouTube’s Role in Election 2008”(http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2007/03/01/presidential-candidates-turn-to-youtube)YouTube’s co-founder and CEO, Chad Hurley said, ‘YouTube is about democracy and self-expression and we’re proud to be providing politicians with an environment where they can share information with voters.’ Everyone with Internet access can participate in these online discussions, but does this help the election overall? Is this only helpful for the younger voters since 70% of 18 to 25 year olds find the internet useful, whereas only 48% of those over 25 find it useful in the political process (Kaid 409)?
As mentioned in the Political Handbook, Bennett and Etman described the “ideal public sphere” is a place where “all citizens have equal access to communication that is both independent of government constraint, and through its deliberative consensus-building capacity, constraints the agendas and decisions of the government in return” (515). Is YouTube’s “You Choose ‘08” an ideal public sphere, independent of government constraint? Some others argue that this type of citizen participation is not the ideal form of a democracy and complicates the election process because it makes people more cynical and confuses them. Is the internet the ideal place for people to communicate about political issues? Or do you think that it is only targeting the younger generation (especially YouTube)?
As mentioned in the Political Handbook, Bennett and Etman described the “ideal public sphere” is a place where “all citizens have equal access to communication that is both independent of government constraint, and through its deliberative consensus-building capacity, constraints the agendas and decisions of the government in return” (515). Is YouTube’s “You Choose ‘08” an ideal public sphere, independent of government constraint? Some others argue that this type of citizen participation is not the ideal form of a democracy and complicates the election process because it makes people more cynical and confuses them. Is the internet the ideal place for people to communicate about political issues? Or do you think that it is only targeting the younger generation (especially YouTube)?
The Online Election
There is no doubt that since the last presidential election that the further development of the Internet has been a major player in the changes of the election process. Even since the 2004 election, websites such as MySpace have developed into thriving social networks that help promotion, information sharing and communication needs for the candidates.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Qualified or Quacked?
What is maturity? As people grow, they attend higher levels of schooling, form tighter relationships, get a car, and can even vote. Voting brings one a feeling of maturity; that they can finally do something that those younger than them cannot and those their senior can, a privilege of sorts. But how can people feel mature about voting when the advertisements that they see everyday for their presidential candidates are full of immaturity?
Understandably, each presidential candidate wants to make himself look better than the other candidate but are angry and accusing commercials really going to make a candidate look better or more qualified? When does advertising become more of a grade school quarrel and less of a mature debate?
As referenced in class, McCain’s campaign has recently started putting out more damaging commercials towards Obama which really begin to attack Obama’s character. McCain has put out a commercial accusing Obama of being a pervert who wants to teach sexual education to young children. He also has called Obama nothing more than a celebrity, implying he is incompetent to run the country.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/08/hot-chick-dig-o.html
Obama’s advertisements have recently taken to accuse McCain of being a monster who wants to take away abortion rights from women all over the country. The commercials aim to instill fear in the viewers.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Election2008/Default.aspx?id=238514
The Handbook of Political Communication Research discusses the role of political advertising on television and its role. It states, “In many countries, for instance, do not require-or even allow-their candidates or parties to purchase space or time for political advertising. In contrast, some countries provide free time on public broadcast outlets for candidates and parties to promote themselves and their ideas” (156).
In some other countries, there is no political advertising allowed and yet the people still end up with a leader. Whether they have much knowledge of their leader becomes questionable.
The advertisements have become more and more expensive every year. The Handbook reports that, “In the last four presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, and 2000) spending for political advertising has been at record levels. George H. W. Bush and Dukakis together spent over $80 million on electric advertising in 1988 (Devlin, 1989). In 1992, the three-candidate race resulted in combined spending of over $120 million for Perot, Bush, and Clinton (Devlin, 1993). Clinton, Dole, Perot, and their respective parties spent nearly $200 million on advertising time in 1996 (Devin 1997) but were topped by Al Gore, George W. Bush, and their parties, with $240 million in reported advertising expenditures (Devlin, 2000)” (157).
So obviously, these slanderous advertisements are not coming at a cheap price. It is sad that so much money goes into what appears to be a childish game of “he said, she said” when the money could be going to helping people around the country.
In the years before television, candidates were forced to promote themselves by travel because there was no other way for them to get their name and image available to the public. Currently, in a world of internet and television, the candidates do travel to advertise but do not focus on the same things that past presidential candidates did because they have the safety net of the television and internet advertisements.
If candidates did decide to travel to every little place in the country to get their name out there, expenses would no doubt be even higher because of all of the traveling they would have to do. However, if candidates did this and rid the world of the slanderous television campaigns, would the expenses be worth it?
So the question is what is the better option? Should presidential candidates continue to invest in accusing advertisements that seem to be based solely on attacking their opponent and less about promoting themselves? Or should they spend more money and stop investing in accusing advertisements and start investing in traveling to even more places to promote themselves in a positive way?
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Political Attack Advertisements
With the recent influx in political advertisements, there are more and more of them which are becoming attack ads. With the recent emergence of the McCain ad, which bashes Obama and compares him to the likes of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, which can see seen here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2c0vctCfhH8), making him out to be more of a celebrity than a politician, there are some ethics which are called into question.
I find the idea of McCain saying that Obama is a celebrity to be one that is causing issue with me, first off, the fact that he is trying to make celebrity status out to be a bad thing, is it so bad that everyone in the world knows his name and his polices? Is it so bad that when people think of who is running for President of the
The Handbook of Political Communication states that “There is no universally accepted definition of negative advertisements, but most would agree that they basically are opponent-focused, rather than candidate-focused. That is, negative ads concentrate on what is wrong with the opponent, either personally or in terms of issue or policy stances” (Kidd, 2000, p. 157). By both McCain and Obama directing ads towards their opponents and not themselves, they are playing into the negative campaigning ideas. Personally, I believe that this is a terrible way to go about running a campaign, by smearing another persons name and trying to defame their character, is no way to win the presidency, or any official position. It is merely saying that the people who are approving the messages are allowing for their campaigns to belittle another person’s way of life and make them seem like the bigger person because of it.
Is it possible that these advertisements are actually helping the people who are putting them out, or are they slowly making sure that the candidate who is approving the message gets defeated by their own ad?
Ads and Blogs...They're Everywhere
Political ads: it's hard to get away from them. In these last few months before the election, it seems like the candidates are throwing all of their eggs into the TV ad basket. In Connecticut, we don't see as many as in the swing states, but there are definitely enough out there to get the idea of what these ads are all about. The handbook defines political advertisements as "the communication process by which a source (usually a political candidate or party) purchases the opportunity to expose receivers through mass channels to political messages with the intended effect of influencing their political attitudes" (156). They are a good way to get the attention of undecided voters, but an even better way to make fun of each other on national television.
I found an article from CNN Money about how political ads are actually helping the media industry. Leslie Moonves, the CEO of CBS said that the increase in political ads is boosting CBS' revenue, especially since the VP picks from both Obama and McCain. Moonves also noted that the auto industry is experiencing a boost in income and spending more money on advertising. You can see the article here: CBS CEO Leslie Moonves notes political ad gains
A boost in the media industry's revenue is just one of many effects of political advertising. Political ads can help viewers with name recognition, remembrance of specific campaign issues, and formation of candidate images. Of course there are also some negative effects of these ads, as we have seen with John McCain's use of Paris Hilton in an ad about Obama's "celebrity".
What kind of effect, if any, do political ads have on you? Do you think that they do a good job promoting the candidates or do you think they do more harm than good?
Aside from just political ads, the media has other outlets in which they can inform the public about politics. In the 2000 election, "the use of traditional news media, along with information from the Internet, had independent effects on political learning" (Handbook 371). Eight years later, the Internet plays a much larger role in our knowledge of politics, for better or for worse. Political blogs are so common now, it's hard to know when to believe what you read. As I looked for a news article to post in this section, almost every article from my Google News search was from a blog, saying how bad the political blogs are. Here is a particularly entertaining one from The Moderate Voice: Blog Addiction
How do you feel about political blogs? Do you read them, and if so, do you think they are an accurate depiction of the political situation?
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Sarah Palin
Posted on behalf of Tom Keith:
As a liberal, my initial reaction to the selection of Sarah Palin was one of belittlement and condescension. Did the GOP really think that Hillary Clinton supporters were either stupid enough or bitter enough to vote against the core of their beliefs because of a vice presidential nominees gender? Surely their Rove era arrogance had not reached this point.
Sadly I was wrong about McCain and the GOP. They were not gunning for Hillary Clinton supporters. They were taking sharp aim at the conservative base and in the process hijacking the political narrative of “Only in America” from the Obamas.
The fact is, in the world of political media and image making a young, attractive female governor with hard right values and an intriguing family narrative is something possible of igniting conservatives for the first time in this race. And in an all telling twist her teenage daughter is pregnant.
One would rightly assume that the liberal media would be frantic trying to get a hold of a story about an illegitimate pregnancy in the campaign. The McCain camp counted on this and used it to jab Obama on claims he wasn’t keeping his promise to deliver a new kind of politics. Obama and Biden both released very pleasant statements regarding how families should not fall victim to the magnifying glass of election season.
So in essence on a kitchen table level McCain has literally done the impossible. He has stolen the conversation from Barack Obama who might be the most compelling candidate since John F. Kennedy. In both of my political science classes the discussion was Palin and that is why McCain picked her, she gives him buzz which he could not produce to save his life.
Now with the polls split almost dead even, Palin has served as a GOP political wrecking ball, changing the game literally. Obama is now back on his heels for the first time. For the next 60 days the battle for political narrative, media image, and simple hype will be escalated to epic battle. Obama will be waiting for the moment Palin’s story begins to bore us so he can take back the conversation. But if she continues to provide news, personal or political, it might become more difficult than he thinks.
As a liberal, my initial reaction to the selection of Sarah Palin was one of belittlement and condescension. Did the GOP really think that Hillary Clinton supporters were either stupid enough or bitter enough to vote against the core of their beliefs because of a vice presidential nominees gender? Surely their Rove era arrogance had not reached this point.
Sadly I was wrong about McCain and the GOP. They were not gunning for Hillary Clinton supporters. They were taking sharp aim at the conservative base and in the process hijacking the political narrative of “Only in America” from the Obamas.
The fact is, in the world of political media and image making a young, attractive female governor with hard right values and an intriguing family narrative is something possible of igniting conservatives for the first time in this race. And in an all telling twist her teenage daughter is pregnant.
One would rightly assume that the liberal media would be frantic trying to get a hold of a story about an illegitimate pregnancy in the campaign. The McCain camp counted on this and used it to jab Obama on claims he wasn’t keeping his promise to deliver a new kind of politics. Obama and Biden both released very pleasant statements regarding how families should not fall victim to the magnifying glass of election season.
So in essence on a kitchen table level McCain has literally done the impossible. He has stolen the conversation from Barack Obama who might be the most compelling candidate since John F. Kennedy. In both of my political science classes the discussion was Palin and that is why McCain picked her, she gives him buzz which he could not produce to save his life.
Now with the polls split almost dead even, Palin has served as a GOP political wrecking ball, changing the game literally. Obama is now back on his heels for the first time. For the next 60 days the battle for political narrative, media image, and simple hype will be escalated to epic battle. Obama will be waiting for the moment Palin’s story begins to bore us so he can take back the conversation. But if she continues to provide news, personal or political, it might become more difficult than he thinks.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Celebrity Polictics: When "Us Weekly" Attacks
The 2008 election is unlike any other for many, and quite obvious reasons. One issue, that may or may not, seem as important as others, is the issue of celebrity. McCain’s well hyped commercial, comparing Senator Barack Obama to the celebrity juggernauts Britney Spears and Paris Hilton questions this issue. In Hart’s “Seducing America”, it describes the effects of this new turn in political ad campaigns. It states, “In a sample of 803 political commercials, only 134 (less than 17%) addressed policy questions and only 50 of these latter advertisements (6.2% of the 803) ‘contained specific policy positions’” (55). Celebrity powerhouses Britney and Paris may be, but political aficionados, they are not. Though that could be questioned with Paris Hilton’s rather comical response commercial to McCain’s add. ( http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/4178033806 for all those who did not see it).
So what about those Republicans? Sure McCain is a Maverick, but the American public has not seen McCain in an awe inspiring environment surrounded by followers, and fans, like Obama was in his recent tour of Europe and his speech in Germany. As it states in Waterman’s “The Image-Is-Everything Presidency”, “From Franklin Roosevelt’s time onward, it became necessary for presidents to be good public speakers and to have a clear message” (143). That is of course until Sarah Pahlin rolled around. In perhaps the biggest boost of adrenaline ever pumped into a political campaign, McCain picked the relatively unknown Governor of Alaska as his running mate. A self proclaimed “pitbull with lipstick hockey mom” her good looks and tenacity has garnered the celebrity attention that the McCain ad mocked. In a recent New York Times article http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/08/business/media/08usweekly.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=login, it details the aftermath of the Us Weekly coverage of Sarah Pahlin and the headline of: “Babies, Lies, and Scandals”. This headline is particularly curious since a June issue with Barack and Michelle Obama on the cover where the headline was: “Why She Loves Him”. What right does a magazine like Us Weekly have in questioning someone’s political past when before the Sarah Pahlin story garnered the most hits on the website, the previous topper was Jennifer Love Hewitt’s diet secrets?
With that being said how important is personality in today’s culture as compared to elections past? Are the issues being skewed by the “celebrity” or the popularity prowess the tickets have? As the country’s youth, how are we supposed to grow from past mistakes if we are too superficially stagnant to recognize them as they are present?
So what about those Republicans? Sure McCain is a Maverick, but the American public has not seen McCain in an awe inspiring environment surrounded by followers, and fans, like Obama was in his recent tour of Europe and his speech in Germany. As it states in Waterman’s “The Image-Is-Everything Presidency”, “From Franklin Roosevelt’s time onward, it became necessary for presidents to be good public speakers and to have a clear message” (143). That is of course until Sarah Pahlin rolled around. In perhaps the biggest boost of adrenaline ever pumped into a political campaign, McCain picked the relatively unknown Governor of Alaska as his running mate. A self proclaimed “pitbull with lipstick hockey mom” her good looks and tenacity has garnered the celebrity attention that the McCain ad mocked. In a recent New York Times article http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/08/business/media/08usweekly.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=login, it details the aftermath of the Us Weekly coverage of Sarah Pahlin and the headline of: “Babies, Lies, and Scandals”. This headline is particularly curious since a June issue with Barack and Michelle Obama on the cover where the headline was: “Why She Loves Him”. What right does a magazine like Us Weekly have in questioning someone’s political past when before the Sarah Pahlin story garnered the most hits on the website, the previous topper was Jennifer Love Hewitt’s diet secrets?
With that being said how important is personality in today’s culture as compared to elections past? Are the issues being skewed by the “celebrity” or the popularity prowess the tickets have? As the country’s youth, how are we supposed to grow from past mistakes if we are too superficially stagnant to recognize them as they are present?
Mind Over Matter: Personality Politics
In recent history, Presidential campaigns have transformed from policy driven to media spectacles, which do not necessarily discuss the major issues in depth. The general public nowadays has access to an abundance of information concerning each candidate, from their views on abortion to what cereal they eat in the morning, and which pant leg they put on first in the morning. These minute details only contribute to the idea that “news” of the campaigns is not necessarily hard-hitting or investigative. Kaid’s chapter 9 of the “Handbook of Political Communication Research” discusses how elections currently resemble horse races and other large media events (238). Campaign journalism has become saturated with stories of various blunders and errors the candidates have made. Kaid states on page 240 that “researchers have shown that the most common themes of campaign stories are those that are simply about what is happening in the campaign itself (Hess 2000).” Candidates have become celebrities in their own right, taking over the pages of not only newspapers, but gossip magazines as well, as campaigns have become personality driven matters. We, as the general public, now feel as though we personally know each candidate. As Hart discusses in chapter 3, people are now using the same judgment to pick a President as they use to pick a spouse or a golf partner (52). He also argues that instead of using traditional political knowledge to pick a President, “personality politics” has become the most common way to judge the candidates, and thus chose a President.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/09/mccain_manager_this_election_i.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1eg0zFmAOM
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Shaping public opinion on political issues
Posted on behalf of Steve Halas:
Since the dawn of the television age media coverage has helped people to form their opinions about politics and world affairs. But where do these ideas and opinions really come from? Are they the public’s ideas that are solidified by media coverage, or is it the points of view of politicians and reporters that make up the public’s mind? How do any of us claim to have our own points of view about politics if the only place we get our information from is the television set and internet videos?
In chapters 1 and 2 of “Seducing America” Hart discusses the effects television has had on Americans and their political opinions. On page 5 of his book he writes, “Television, I shall now argue, tells us how to feel about politics, producing in us a swagger whereby we tower over politics by making it seem beneath us.” If this is true, that television tells us how to feel about politics, how much do we really know about the government and politicians? How much of what we think we know is shaped by the mind’s of political types and figureheads who strive to gain public favor through the use of flexible mediums?
As we near the time to elect a new president the television and internet has been flooded by images of candidates, their commercials and tons of speeches. With this storm of information comes loads of mixed messages from different sources, but where do our opinions come in?
The following is one of Obama’s campaign videos. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCMVL5tXLGQ
This video was obviously made to help support Obama and criticize McCain but are there aspects of it that are misleading? It’s part of every politician’s game plan to make him or herself sound like a man or woman of the people, but how much do we really know about McCain and Obama? A little bit about their family lives, where they went to school, where they grew up? The media sure has a way of telling us a lot without telling us anything at the same time!
This second video is of Hilary Clinton’s speech on august 25th at the Democratic national convention. Just listen to the first three minutes and thirty seconds of this thing if you haven’t already heard it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=268ncnoitEc
Hilary got rave reviews for this speech, but what do you guys think of it? Does it sound misleading or do you feel as though it’s an honest depiction of her political agenda and personality?
Since the dawn of the television age media coverage has helped people to form their opinions about politics and world affairs. But where do these ideas and opinions really come from? Are they the public’s ideas that are solidified by media coverage, or is it the points of view of politicians and reporters that make up the public’s mind? How do any of us claim to have our own points of view about politics if the only place we get our information from is the television set and internet videos?
In chapters 1 and 2 of “Seducing America” Hart discusses the effects television has had on Americans and their political opinions. On page 5 of his book he writes, “Television, I shall now argue, tells us how to feel about politics, producing in us a swagger whereby we tower over politics by making it seem beneath us.” If this is true, that television tells us how to feel about politics, how much do we really know about the government and politicians? How much of what we think we know is shaped by the mind’s of political types and figureheads who strive to gain public favor through the use of flexible mediums?
As we near the time to elect a new president the television and internet has been flooded by images of candidates, their commercials and tons of speeches. With this storm of information comes loads of mixed messages from different sources, but where do our opinions come in?
The following is one of Obama’s campaign videos. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCMVL5tXLGQ
This video was obviously made to help support Obama and criticize McCain but are there aspects of it that are misleading? It’s part of every politician’s game plan to make him or herself sound like a man or woman of the people, but how much do we really know about McCain and Obama? A little bit about their family lives, where they went to school, where they grew up? The media sure has a way of telling us a lot without telling us anything at the same time!
This second video is of Hilary Clinton’s speech on august 25th at the Democratic national convention. Just listen to the first three minutes and thirty seconds of this thing if you haven’t already heard it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=268ncnoitEc
Hilary got rave reviews for this speech, but what do you guys think of it? Does it sound misleading or do you feel as though it’s an honest depiction of her political agenda and personality?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)