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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)