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.
No comments:
Post a Comment