Political Communication in the News

For this assignment I chose to watch an episode of "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" on October 25th, 2012 and "Anderson Cooper 360" from October 26th, 2012. I was interested to see the differences between a comedic/satirical analysis of the election and a serious analysis of the election. The two were quite different, as you can imagine, but I discovered that by watching either can help people to understand on-going issues and events in this election.

I'll start with "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart." First and foremost I should probably disclose that I am a little biased, I love "The Daily Show." I think it is interesting to see political news/events portrayed in a comedic way. The episode that I viewed was based on a few different issues such as a response to Republican's statement that Obama "picks winners and losers" in choosing which industries to save/invest in. Jon Stewart responded to that by showing clips of Mitt Romney discussing the importance of investing in roads, air traffic, Pell Grants, science and technology and explaining that those statements are also about "picking winners and losers" and that in almost every decision that government makes there are winners and losers. Jon Stewart also discusses Romney's support of Congressional candidate Richard Mourdock and Mourdock's comment that he agrees with abortion in cases of the life of the mother but in cases of rape and incest he believes that if a woman is impregnated by such an encounter it was by some divine will (what?!).
Here is a clip of this comment:

While the point of this segment was to criticize the comments that Republican's have made about rape, the audience and viewers are also able to attain information. Jon Stewart pointed out fragments of the Republican Party Platform that demonstrate the idea that rape should not be allowed under any circumstances. Even though Jon Stewart is presenting a comedic and entertaining program, he is still giving his audience and viewers information that they may not have had previously.

Throughout the show, Jon Stewart refers to different claims that Romney and Obama have made about each other's policies. While Jon Stewart pokes fun at Romney for his well-known inconsistencies, he also gives the audiences and the viewers factual information. For instance, Romney claimed that 50% of companies that received Federal Stimulus money have gone bankrupt (such as sustainable energy companies). However, Jon Stewart shows data and information to point to the fact that out of 63 energy companies that received that those funds only 8% went bankrupt, not 50%. He then goes on to show information about the 22% of companies that Bain Captial invested in went bankrupt, like a doll company called "Lifelike." While Jon Stewart pokes fun at Romney for investing in a doll company, the audience and viewers were able to get some information from the segment. They were able to discover that sometimes the numbers and data that Romney (or political candidates in general) has given aren't always entirely accurate.  

Jon Stewart's guest for this episode was Nancy Pelosi.

(Photo Credit: LA Times Online)

The two discussed partisan issues in Congress and a bit about shared democratic values. Again, although Jon Stewart made some jokes throughout the interview, the discussion points had value, it could possibly demonstrate to the audience and viewers that the Presidential Election is not the only election that we should focus on and that we also need to pay close attention to Congressional elections as well. 

Although many people believe that Jon Stewart has quite a bit of bias and he is very harsh on the Republican party, he does mocks the Democratic party at times on his show as well. By watching "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" I was able to see a few different concepts that I learned in class. First, I was able to see a demonstration of a "Gotcha" moment with Richard Mourdocks comments about rape. I was also able to see how inconsistencies in communication can cause people to be wary of political candidates. I honestly believe that there is value in watching "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart." It seems to me that while the show is entertaining and funny, it is also informative. Audience members and views are able to extract "tid-bits" of information from the segments on the show. I think that it is important that Jon Stewart makes a point to give information because there are many people who would rather watch "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" rather than CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and the like because they are able to be entertained, laugh and have fun while also getting information about candidates that may help them to grasp a kind of understanding about candidate positions and issues. While this brings up an issues that I have learned in class, that American's would rather be entertained than hear cut and dry news stories (an idea discussed in "Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business" by Neil Postman):

(Photo Credit: amazon.com)

Although perhaps we should pay more attention to the more serious news stories instead of comedic/satirical television shows, it is still possible for average citizens to be informed about the things that are going on around us in the political sphere by watching more entertaining shows such as "The Daily Report with Jon Stewart." Sometimes we need a break from the seriousness of the news, sometimes we need to sit back and have a laugh. I honestly feel that it is important for us to laugh at ourselves and our way of life every once in a while and watching shows such as "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" give us the chance to do that without completely ignoring important information that can guide us to being a better informed public.

The second program I chose to watch was "Anderson Cooper 360" to see a more straight forward segment. (And also, it doesn't hurt that Anderson Cooper is a gorgeous human being in my opinion)

(Photo Credit: Yahoo! TV Online)

There were several segments on the October 26th, 2012 episode of "Anderson Cooper 360" which mainly focused on the candidates efforts in Ohio. Statistical data was used to explore campaign ads, voter enthusiasm, and which candidates were more favored to win Ohio. This statistical data made the segment less biased. By using numbers charts, the viewers were able to get a grasp on which candidate is more successful in Ohio with less partisan issues skewing the view. 

To me, the most interesting segment of this episode was the discussion of Political Ads, a topic we are currently discussing in depth in class. Anderson Cooper discussed the different strategies that each candidate is using in their ads. Research and statistical data was used to show the different strategies. For instance, the audience was told that 21% of Romney's ads used "sad faced" people to depict unemployment, with the Obama campaign only using similar images in about 1% of ads. Anderson Cooper explained that there have been over 119 campaigns ads that have aired approximately 180,000 times in October (WOW!). He also discussed the focus on women and the elderly in many of these votes. The most interesting information (in my opinion) was regarding the way that the Obama campaign ads chose to portray Romney versus the way that Romney's campaign ads chose to portray him. Anderson Cooper discussed that in Obama campaign ads, Romney is usually shown wearing a suit and tie while in his own campaign ads he is usually shown wearing jeans, a button down and no tie. This idea reflects several concepts I've learned in class thus far. First, the importance of image and how critical it can be to portray a candidate in a certain way. The Obama campaign ads chose to show Romney in a more elitist way, drawing from the idea that Romney is a difficult man for the middle class to relate to. On the other hand, the Romney campaign chose to portray him as more relaxed and casual, more like the "every-man." This was a very interesting way see campaign ads and the strategies used in them, a topic that I have been learning quite a bit about in class. 

The rest of the episode was a discussion about the campaigning in Ohio and how important it is for either candidate to succeed in Ohio. Anderson Cooper used the CNN ORC Poll to show "Likely Voters Choice for President" in Ohio: Obama 50%, Romney 46%. John King made an appearance to discuss the polls in Ohio also showing the among independent voters, 49% were likely to vote for Obama and 44% were likely to vote for Romney. Both Anderson Cooper and John King discussed the importance of winning the vote in Ohio by using numbers and data. Another portion discussed voter enthusiasm in Ohio with James Carville and Mary Matalin. 

(Photo Credit: LA Times Blog Online)

They discussed the new poll information which brought up an interesting issue. James Carville discussed that the polls are not necessarily perfect sources of information. First, he explained that those who answer the poll are not guaranteed to vote. He also explained the issue of "robo-calls" and the inability to reach many people because robo-calls cannot contact via cell phones. This was an important point, one I've also learned in class. Polls are not perfect sources of information, they have flaws. A great deal of these portions of "Anderson Cooper 360" were more "horse-race" information. They used numbers and data to explain the possible outcomes of the election.

On the other hand, the remaining two segments were more based on the candidate's strategies. One segment discussed the level of enthusiasm in Ohio voters for each candidate. Viewers were able to see that Romney's strategy was "Romney can win" while Obama's strategy was "Romney can't win." Obama also used the 2000 election disaster to demonstrate the importance of getting to the polls on Election Day. Another, quite interesting segment was a discussion of an interview that MTV had with President Obama. Anderson Cooper explained that there are 45 million 18-25 years old that are eligible to vote in this election. This concept reminded me of another concept we learned in class which is tailoring messages to reach certain voters. 

By watching "Anderson Cooper 360" citizens are able to get information about strategies and understand the numbers a bit better. Average citizens can learn which candidate is currently more successful, and how and where they are campaigning. It is very important that we are able to see discussion from experts (political analysts, campaign analysts, etc) and hear what they have to see regarding the election. Also, on occasion reporters from stations such as CNN go out into the field and talk to the people and we are able to hear and see things from the viewpoints of others who are generally just like us. I think it is also important to make an attempt to watch news shows that do not claim support to one candidate or another (although there has been some controversy over CNN's supposed bias) and hear facts and information from those who do not necessarily attempt to sway one way or the other but present pertinent information and allow us, the citizens, to make the decision for ourselves.

Both of these programs have value. I don't think that a citizen can get all of the information they would need to make an informed decision about a candidate simply by watching "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart." Although it is an opportunity to learn some pieces of information and be a bit better informed, it cannot be a sole provider of correct, non-partisan information. It is important to create a balance, I think. To be better informed citizens, we need to watch programs like "Anderson Cooper 360" and hear from experts that spend their lives researching and studying political campaigns. However, when we tire from all of the numbers, percentages, maps, charts and graphs, it is absolutely appropriate to turn to a program that we can laugh along with, while also getting information. 

Watching these two shows reminded me of those two theories of Lippman and Dewey. Watching these programs I honestly believe that Dewey had a stronger idea/theory about the media's role in politics. Citizens are not apathetic, to be honest I think it would be a full-time job to be apathetic to political matters. Each and everyday we are bombarded with ads, news shows, comedic and satirical political shows, articles, radio shows, friends, co-workers, etc. Whether we like it or not, when we hear about issues and candidate stances, we react. We may not know everything there is to know about an issue or a candidate, but we get bits and pieces of information EVERYWHERE and when we hear those pieces of information we form an opinion (probably not a wholly informed opinion, but an opinion nonetheless). Lippman was inaccurate (in my opinion), citizens do not need the media to dissect the information and then tell us what to think, most people I know are VERY good at forming their own opinions and drawing conclusions for themselves. Dewey had the right idea, it is the duty of the press to inform us as citizens, help us to understand the more difficult information (some of those graphs and the slew of percentages give me a headache). These types of shows help us to do just that. They give us the information, discuss what that information means (in very different ways), and then allow us to form our own opinions. Both types of shows can be helpful in our quest for information of candidates, one can give us the data and facts and help us to understand them, and the other presents us with information while allowing us the opportunity to analyze the information and also laugh at the sometimes ridiculous things that happen in campaigns and elections. Lippman should really give us a bit more credit, we can be a very smart and driven people. Honestly, these citizens don't look very apathetic to me:

Politics and Digital Communication

Chapter 11 of Trent and Friedenberg's "Political Campaign Communication" focused on the emergence of new media in political campaigns and the way in which candidates utilize these new mediums to communication with us, the public.

(Photo Credit: ScribeMedia.org)

This chapter was intriguing. As a child of the "digital age" nearly every aspect of my life has a connection to technology and the internet. Homework assignments call for research that can be done online, I can connect with out-of-state friends over Facebook or Skype, get information about news, entertainment, celebrity scandals and everything in between. In fact, I am one of those annoying people who when asked a question to which I don't know the answer I respond "Google it!" (or as my dad says, "punch it up on the internet thing). It was really interesting to read that the internet, social media, blogs, e-mail and the like are not necessarily as old as I may have thought they were. Throughout the chapter, Trent and Friedenberg point out that Bill Clinton was one of the first to use e-mail, online discussion groups and distribute information to some extent, John McCain was the first to solicit donations through e-mail (and was EXTREMELY successful at that venture), and Obama was the first to use the internet to campaign to the extent that we see today (using social media, websites, blogs, e-mail, text messages, YouTube, IPhone Applications and the like).

Trent and Friedenberg point out the overwhelming number of citizens who use the internet for political purposes (blogging,seeking information, engaging in discussion, etc.) and the way in which candidate's use of internet mediums brings a sense of connection to the public. This makes me wonder, what are the advantages to using this new media as opposed to the traditional way of campaigning? And along those same lines, what are the disadvantages?

In my opinion, one of the MOST important advantages to new media in political campaigns is way that the internet and technology make fundraising easier and smoother than it used to be. In class we learned that before the internet was used, donations were solicited by mail which was (in most cases) a long and drawn out process. Mail can get lost, hidden under a pile of bills, or simply forgotten. Even if a citizen decided they wanted to contribute to the campaign, the amount of time it took to receive the donations was most likely an issue for political campaigns. However, with the internet, donating to a campaign is easy and quick. When a citizen chooses to explore a candidate's website, the first thing that they come across is an option to donate. All one has to do is choose an amount (or enter one in if it does not appear) and enter their credit card information. The money goes to that campaign. There are also options to donate through text messages as you can see here:

(Photo Credit: Tatango.com)

How crazy is that? By simply typing the words "Donate" and "Yes" a person is able to contribute to the candidate that they wish to support. You don't even have to enter a credit card number! How much easier can it get!

The internet and new media make it much easier for both the candidate as well as the public to both fund raise and contribute respectively. 

Another advantage to new media is the candidate's ability to distribute information to the public in a way that's cheaper, faster, and more people are able to see/read/access the information than by way of traditional mediums. For instance, as I was able to see in class, on both Romney and Obama's official websites, there is an area dedicated to each candidate's position on issues. It is incredibly easy for citizens to access and it is a much more efficient way for candidate's to inform the public on where they stand versus where their opponent stands. Although through televised or broadcasts of speeches and articles in magazine and newspapers are able to also convey a candidate's stance, the ease of using a website as a means to share information is valuable to both the candidate and the public. Here is a link to both Obama and Romney's "Issues" portion of their websites:

"Get the Facts" Obama on Issues

"On the Issues" Romney on Issues

For candidates, using their websites as a platform to discuss their stances is both easier and cheaper than traditional political mediums. 

A third advantage to new media in political campaigns is the ability to receive quick and concise feedback from the public and connect to them on a more personal level. Trent and Friedenberg point out the social media such as Twitter, Facebook, and Blogs are a way that citizens are able to engage in the political process. They are able to post opinions, issues and concerns on the internet for any and everyone to see. By paying attention to these internet tools, candidates are better able to get feedback on what is and is not working in their campaigns and re-organize accordingly. 

Social media, text messages and e-mails create a sense of personal connection to candidates that we just don't get from simply seeing them on television. Seeing a candidate's Twitter and Facebook page, following their posts, and reading their personal messages gives us a sense of being in the "in crowd" as Trent and Friedenberg point out. For a candidate this is an advantage because when citizens feel that they are somehow connected to a candidate, they become more likely to support that candidate come election day. For instance, when I open my e-mail and see that I have an e-mail from "Obama" and it actually starts out saying "Lauren..." it makes me feel connected his campaign on a more personal level. Although I know that Obama did not personally sit down and write the e-mail, it still makes my support stronger in a sense. 

In life, there is a positive and a negative to everything, and the same goes for new media and political communication. First, with the internet and new media we get everything faster, information, news, pictures, videos, everything and for the most part, any and everyone with internet access can get their hands on this information. While this can be a good thing and help citizens to stay informed, it can be bad for candidates occasionally. Trent and Friedenberg discuss YouTube, as did Powell and Cowart in the article "Cyberspace: The Internet and Political Communication." In both the article and in "Political Campaign Communication" it becomes clear that sometimes, YouTube can be a candidate's worst enemy (whoever said any press is good press was mistaken). Before YouTube, to catch a candidate doing something that had a negative effect on their campaign would have required the presence of the media. Although these events did happen, take for example the infamous video below:

 

However, now candidate's not only have to be concerned with the media catching them in moments of bad judgment, but anyone with a camera phone can hurt a candidate's campaign, which is what recently happened to Romney:

While using new media can be advantageous for a candidate, that same new media can also cause them to lose support as well. With the ability to spread information, videos, pictures etc. like wildfire, sometimes candidates are at the mercy of citizens with camera phones. While we, the public, may find that these videos are a good thing, meaning that we are able to see a candidate's "true colors" at times, candidates most likely do not feel the same way. 

Another disadvantage is the amount of untrue information and negative information that is put onto the internet regarding a candidate, their values, positions and personality. In "Cyberspace: The Internet and Political Communication" Powell and Cowart explain the any one can start a website or a blog and for the most part, there is no one moderating the information that they type. Trent and Friedenberg state that by 2008 there were over 150 million blogs (370). So who controls what information is put on these blogs? Essentially no one and sometimes all it takes is the spreading of a lie that can cause strife for a candidate. For example, the issue of Obama's being born in America was taken so seriously that copies of Obama's birth certificate are plastered all over the internet.Another example of this would be related to the Carlin and Winfrey article "Have You Come A Long Way Baby? Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and Sexism in 2008 Campaign Coverage." The article discussed the negative way Sarah Palin were portrayed by the media. This is also true of the internet as well. Several blogs, websites and Facebook pages were created that painted these strong and capable women in a negative light, questioning Sarah Palin's parenting skills and Hillary Clinton's "ball-breaking" tendencies. These internet pages and social media posts had negative effects on each woman's campaign, some people would read these posts and question Palin and Clinton's ability to govern based on this irrelevant information. Again, the use of the internet to distribute information in political campaigns can have many positive effects, however, the instance spreading misinformation and negative information can cause issues for candidates.  

A third disadvantage for candidate using new media is that while a huge portion of the population uses the internet and technology to access information regarding elections, there are still those that prefer the more traditional way, television, newspapers, radio and the like. For instance, my father is one of the smartest people I know, he dearly loves to engage in political discourse, debate with me and have conversations about candidates. However, he does not have an e-mail address, Twitter account, and only has a Facebook because my younger sister created one for him, he never signs on or reads anything on the page. He has no interest in technology or the internet. He reads the Sunday paper, listens to talk radio and watches television for his political information. He is currently an undecided voter. How is Obama or Romney going to have the best chance to reach him and convince him? Politicians face a challenge with creating a balance between new media while also trying to pay attention to those who may not choose to utilize new media (and I don't see anything wrong with that myself). While new media is an exciting way to connect with voters, fund raise, distribute information, organize volunteers, etc. they can be at a disadvantage if they focus their attention on these new mediums and not as much on traditional mediums. Trent and Friedenberg point out that new media gives citizens a chance to engage themselves in politics in ways that weren't necessarily possible before. New media is faster, cheaper and efficient for politicians, but if they don't remember that not all voters/citizens choose to use these mediums, they may be missing important votes. 

Chapter 11 in Trent and Friedenberg's "Political Campaign Communication" was very interesting. Not only did I see that the internet, social media, cell phones, text messages and the like were such key elements of elections and campaigns but I also learned how empowered and excited these mediums can make voters/citizens feel. With more and more technology being developed everyday and more apps in the iTunes store by the hour, it is going to be exciting to see where technology will take political campaigns next and what effects they will have on candidates as well as citizens.

14 Days to Go! 

Response to Carlin and Winfrey Article

"Have You Come a Long Way, Baby? Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and Sexism in 2008 Campaign Coverage"

I knew I was going to like this article as soon as I read the title. I LOVE that title!

Not only did I love the title of this article, I loved the article itself. The first thing that came to my mind when I started reading was the documentary "Miss Representation." The documentary is about the portrayal of women in the media and there is a segment dedicated to the women in politics. I truly believe that everyone needs to see that documentary at some point, it's incredible. If you haven't seen it, here's a short trailer:

In their article "Have You Come a Long Way Baby? : Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and Sexism in 2008 Campaign Coverage" Carlin and Winfrey discuss the way the media chose to portray Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. They argue that women in politics are judged much differently by the media than men, and I definitely agree with them. Carlin and Winfrey argue that there are four stereotypes of professional women: seductress or sex object, mother, pet, and Iron Maiden. Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton were judged based on appearance, their ability as mothers (juggling work with family life, exploiting their children through the campaign), they were spoken to and about as if they were children or ridiculously fragile, and whether or not they were too masculine, too tough, or considered to be a "nut cracker" or "ball breaker."

Carlin and Winfrey discuss a photograph that was taken of Sarah Palin that falls under the category of being stereotyped as a seductress or sex object. If I am correct, it is this picture:

(Photo Credit: thethirdcity.org)

The fact that someone, somewhere had a camera and thought that this picture was a great idea astounds me. This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. Carlin and Winfrey discuss the response to Sarah Palin and explain that her appearance and her past as a beauty pageant contestant was discussed more that her stance on issues and that she was placed into the stereotypical role of the seductress or sex objects. They even claim that there was a Sarah Palin blow up doll. I honestly didn't know that and when I came across that point in the article, I had to re-read it to make sure that I was understanding it correctly.

Carlin and Winfrey' also describe the scrutiny of Hillary Clinton in regards to her appearance. They recall comments directed towards Hillary Clinton and responded negatively toward her because they felt that she wasn't as attractive or young-looking as Sarah Palin. I have to question what does any of this have to do with a woman's ability to be a leader? I'm sorry, but in my opinion George W. Bush is not the most attractive man. However, when he was running I don't remember anyone commenting on his appearance and scrutinizing him for his choice of tie. Yet, somehow, Carlin and Winfrey show that Hillary Clinton was constantly insulted because she chose to wear pantsuits as opposed to skirts. I always scowl when I hear the "talking heads" criticizing a female candidate's wardrobe choices or comment on their body types, it's utterly ridiculous. If a female candidate decided to show up to and event wearing a garbage bag or a bustier then I could understand why someone would choose to comment, but how is the fact that a candidate choose a pantsuit over a skirt relevant to their campaign at all? It's not. It is interesting to me that both women were nearly opposites, Sarah Palin was portrayed as being much more feminine and Hillary Clinton was portrayed as being more masculine, yet neither women were able to benefit much from either choice. Sarah Palin was not taken seriously and wasn't seen as a leader, and Hillary Clinton was seen as a "nut cracker" or "ball buster" and she was note taken seriously either. So what exactly is it that men would deem a serious female candidate for a high office in government?

When I read the section of Carlin and Winfrey's article that discussed the emergence of the Facebook group "Stop Running for President and Make Me a Sandwich" I remembered encountering similar opinions. On several occasions, I've heard people discussing women in political positions and heard many misogynistic jokes (coming from both men and women) on the subject similar to the "make me a sandwich" kind. When I would become angry and defend those women, I was ALWAYS confronted with the same response "You have no sense of humor, we're just kidding." Am I missing something? Because I really don't think jokes of that nature are funny at all. This idea is connected to another point that Carlin and Winfrey discuss in their article. The way in which he media responded to Hillary Clinton when she got "emotional." I really don't think that there is any greater stereotype women face than that of being "too emotional." Carlin and Winfrey describe a debate in which Hillary Clinton becomes angry and the scrutiny that followed her after the fact because she had a "meltdown." The article also makes a valid point that male candidates get angry and have "meltdowns" during debates quite consistently yet they don't come under attack for their emotional state. Hillary Clinton was also criticized because when see was seen crying and then things like this began to surface: 

While there are men in politics that are criticized for crying (such as Obama and Bush) they are not criticized as heavily. In class we discussed the several mistakes that politicians have made on campaign trails and how those mistakes affected their campaigns, but when a women makes a mistake (not matter how small or large) it is criticized much more heavily. I think the media sits around and waits for women politicians to shed a tear. I will never forget Marc Rudov's comment when asked the downside to a female president on "The O'Reilly Factor" and Rudov's response about PMS and mood swings. Now, I know that one must consider the source and the fact that he said he was "kidding" but honestly, that seems to be what the media means when they discuss how "emotional" a female candidate is. Nothing, and I repeat, NOTHING makes me more angry than a woman being criticized and the words "PMS" "mood swing" "that time of the month" come up.

In my opinion, Carlin and Winfrey's article was brilliant. They shed light on the treatment of women in the political world by the media and the way in with they are criticized, scrutinized and sometimes even insulted. This is a very important issue. Unless we (the viewers) take a stand to stop this, it is going to continue. Carlin and Winfrey make a very important point, they argue "...women candidates and their campaign staffs need to decide to attack sexism and to attack it early and consistently" (Carlin and Winfrey 339). They relate this to Obama'a speech on racism and call the women in politics to action, challenging them to face the issue of sexism in the same way that Obama faced the issue of racism, head on. I think that one of the most alarming things about the way women in politics are treated by the media is that this treatment is most likely steering away young women that dream of holding office because they do not want to face the harsh and unfair criticism.

I enjoyed this article. I believe what Carlin and Winfrey are saying about female candidates and their need to address this issues, but I also think that we, as the public, have a responsibility as well. Without an audience, they media is worthless. Without us, the viewers, they cannot continue. Therefore, if we take a stand against this treatment and refuse to watch or engage media outlets that objectify, overly criticize and insult women in politics unfairly, we can introduce change. As viewers we have power over the media, and I really believe that this is an issue which we need to use that power. I, for one, am DYING to hear the words "Madame President" and to see this country in the hands of a powerful woman for a change. Someday soon....

Trent, Friedenberg and Denton Chapter 2

      When I was younger, when George W. Bush was president, I remember watching several of his speeches on television with my parents. Although I was much too young to fully understand what he was talking about (I was only 12 or 13 at the time) I remember hearing him say the word "nucular" instead of "nuclear" over and over again. Even as a child I remember thinking "That's not right, he should at least be able to pronounce his words correctly" (perhaps I didn't necessarily think it so eloquently. Most likely I thought something along the lines of "He totally just screwed that up big time"). Even as a child my brain made a connection between how George W. Bush spoke/communicated and his role as the president. That is when I began to understand that the way in which a person communicated effected how others viewed them.
     After reading Chapter 2 in Trent, Friedenberg and Denton's "Political Communication" the idea that communication plays a major role in politics was even more apparent. It was interesting to explore the four stages of a modern political campaign: Pre-primary (or "surfacing"), Primary, Convention and General Election. In the "Surfacing" stage, communication is obviously vital because if no one knows who you are, how can they support you? Trent, Friedenberg and Denton give examples of those who chose not to involve themselves with this stage  and in each example of this, that candidate did not last far in the election. It is clear that one of the focuses of this stage is to gain media attention. By gaining media attention, candidates are able to reach a larger audience and get their name out to the public much quicker. This reminds me of something we were discussing in class about the other parties in the elections that generally do not get much media attention, such as those in the Green Party or the Libertarian Party. Reading this made me wonder. Do the candidates in parties outside of the Democrats and the Republicans not put enough emphasis on "Surfacing"? Or do the media outlets simply not give those other party members a chance because (as history seems to show) they most likely will not will the election? Just a thought. I was also interested to learn that the ritual/symbol of the announcement of a candidates intention of running for election was clearly important to the citizens. As Trent, Friedenberg and Denton point out, hose who chose not to make formal announcement, usually end up leaving the race. Such a fact is quite an affirmation of the importance of participating in the ritual part of a campaign. Citizens expect to see that formal announcement.
     Trent, Friedenberg and Denton also explain the importance of communication in the Primary stage of election. It makes sense to me that this stage relies heavily on communication because at this stage, candidates MUST gain the trust and support of the citizens. The communication is not only important for the candidate at this level, but also for the people as well. As Trent, Friedenberg and Denton point out, at this stage we are able to see a candidate for ourselves. We are able to observe their mannerisms and character and form opinions on our own. Communication is (once again) obviously of vital importance at this stage because in the end it's all up to us, the voters.
     The Convention stage is a bit different. Communication is obviously important in this stage, why else are so many of us glued to our televisions watching the events of the conventions? It is simply a different type of communication. Personally I find this stage to be quite fun. The speeches are uplifting, the atmosphere is electric and we feel a sense of pride to play such an important role. Even reading the speech in "Political Communication" that John Kerry read in 2004 made me smile and gave me a sense of pride and not only was that 8 years ago, I didn't even see it for myself, simply reading the words was enough. I truly think that the Conventions are extremely important. Although they are symbolic now, they give people the feeling that their vote counts, that this is a great country to live in, that they are the audience and that all of this is really about them.
     Of course the last stage, the General Election (or as I like to call it, Politics on Steroids) communication is the most important. The names and faces of the candidates are EVERYWHERE, television, internet, newspapers, magazines, cars, buses, signs, EVERYWHERE. And although we may become annoyed when a political ad interrupts our favorite television show, we can't deny that those ads do effect us. On the outside we say "Not another one of these again" we are also thinking "Wait, is that true? Did he/she really do that? Hm, I  have to look that up!" This kind of communication does affect us. My e-mail inbox is already flooded with mail telling me about upcoming events and where to go to donate money and my door bell has already started ringing. But it's exciting isn't it? I certainly think so!
     I wanted to point out a theme that weaved through Chapter 2 of Trent, Friedenberg and Denton's "Political Communication." They gave several examples about ways in which candidates have either ignored the importance of communication or the effect that bad communication had to their reputations with the people. They discussed that the people want a candidate who is trustworthy, honest and competent, not sketchy or mean. Candidates have to present themselves in a certain way (an idea we began discussing in class on Monday) but what happens when a candidate shows a side of themselves that the people find distasteful or inappropriate? Bad, bad, bad. In an age where information spreads like wildfire, this can be especially problematic. When a candidate (especially a presidential candidate) is caught doing or saying something that they should not do or say people find out about it, FAST. As you can imagine, this is a sort of "negative communication" greatly effects people's opinions and can be a turning point in a campaign. Having said that, there is a perfect example of this happening right now. Mitt Romney was caught on camera making some seriously insulting remarks regarding Obama supporters. Someone caught Mitt Romney on film and posted the video to YouTube on Monday, it already has over 2 million views, and it will most likely have several more by the time anyone reads this. So this incident, as well as many others by candidates of every party, shows that communication, used in a positive or negative way, clearly effects political campaigns. When it is used properly it is one of the most powerful tools a candidate has to gain support. Conversely, when candidates are not careful, lack of communication or irresponsible use of communication can be detrimental.
   

Response to Hauser's "Public Judgment"

Response to question: What are some of the advantages vs challenges in using polls and surveys to determine public opinion?

     After reading Hauser's "Public Judgment" I was particularly interested in the question above. As an example for how an issue/problem can be defined as public or private, Hauser begins by discussing how the state of education has become a public problem because of the many people actively involved in discussion of the issue. He continues by discussing those involved; parents, students, teachers, etc. He then goes on to discuss some of the solutions that have been proposed for the problem by different groups. One of the solutions he mentioned was the way that schools are ranked based on standardized test scores. Having taken several standardized tests in my long career as a student I immediately said to myself "That's ridiculous, most students don't really care about those tests or see them as relevant (especially considering they are generally not a part of the final grades)." I went on to read the rest of the article. Then, I came to a section of the article in which Hauser discusses polls to determine public opinion and I (rather oddly) related those polls to the standardized tests that were discussed in the opening of the article. Although there are several differences between polls/surveys and standardized tests, I began to see a similarity in the way in which they are viewed. For instance, a student who does not really care much about the standardized test, isn't aware that the test scores will influence their school/education, and simply wants to get it over with (probably because they have a half day of school and know that as soon are they are finished they will be able to go home) is not going to perform to the best of their ability and will most likely mindlessly fill in the bubbles. On the other hand, a student who is concerned with their education and is aware that the rank that their school receives based on the scores of the students will directly affect them, will probably take the exam more seriously and answer the questions as best they can. This is slightly similar to what Hauser said about polls and surveys.

     Hauser explains that researchers give out polls and surveys in hopes of gaining knowledge of public opinion on issues. The issue with this is oddly similar to the standardized test example. For one, there will be (without a doubt) people filling out the polls and surveys that do not feel that the results will have any affect on them at all, and simply "fill in the bubbles" to get it over with. Hauser explains that while polls and surveys are valuable tools to gauge public opinion, they can not be relied on alone. Hauser brings up a great point that polls and surveys cannot document discourse and he argues "... public opinion without discourse loses the sense of context and reasoning that provides the basis for holding an opinion in the first place..." (94). Hauser also discusses the fact that a poll cannot gather any information regarding whether the person filling out the survey has any knowledge of the issue that the poll is aiming at, or whether or not they even have any interest in it. This lack of information from a poll causes the data collected to be flawed and incomplete. There are several details that need to be taken into account when trying to gauge the opinion of the public on certain issues. The polls and surveys that attempt to gather information of opinion relating to current issues are missing very important details. I agree with Hauser's statement that there is a difference between popular opinion and public opinion and that some opinions (particularly those from people who are actively involved in issues, or seek all information regarding them) have more weight than others.

     On the other hand, I think that polls and surveys can be valuable to an extent. Some people are not comfortable taking about policy, issues, currents events or politics in general. Sometimes, that quiet person in the group who hasn't engaged in discourse or discussion isn't ignorant of the issue, they just simply do not want to engage in the discourse because they are intimidated by the other's opinions and worry that the discussion may become an argument. For someone in that situation, a poll or survey is a safe place to have your opinion heard without concern. Therefore, these surveys and polls on opinion can be a valuable way for someone to (though very indirectly) state their opinions and concerns.

   In class, we discussed the importance of enlightened understanding of public issues and thinking critically about them. In order to have the opportunity to think critically, your opinion may have to be tested through discourse. To take the words from a famous internet meme "one cannot simply..." test their opinion without voicing it and perhaps defending it. The biggest issue (in my mind) with polls and surveys to collect data on public opinion is the issue of ENLIGHTENED UNDERSTANDING. If there are people filling out these polls and surveys regarding their opinions of public problems and issues without being informed of their causes, effects and consequences can these polls and surveys ever truly gauge the public opinion? I have to say, respectfully of course, no.

     I agree with Hauser, active involvement and discourse (whether it be public meetings, on college campuses, demonstrations, or even just between a group of friends) better reflect public opinion than data collected from surveys. I have to agree with Hauser's argument that our best course of action as citizens to get the issues that are important to us heard and solved is through the rhetorical process.