I think that in the modern era of the United States political system, most people would agree that even with the influx of technology and new forms of media for politicians to use to get their message across that we have seen in recent years, the quality of political communication in this country is abysmal, despite the quantity of it rising exponentially. Anyone who has read my blogs this semester will have heard me rant about the declining state of responsible political news outlets, the rise in buzz words as a substitute for substance, and careful wording of rhetoric that neglects to mention the pitfalls and special interests written into almost all bills and policies. But the question at hand for this particular blog is how to improve political communication at the interpersonal, public, and cultural levels, and I think that the answer to this question can be summed up in one word: Education.
When I talk about education, it is important to make the distinction that I am not talking about a college degree or even taking one or more courses involving politics. It has to be understood that realistically not everyone has the mental skill set or financial means to achieve a goal like this. Instead, the education I speak of can be obtained simply through the word of mouth of a few acquaintances and access to a library card. There is no reason that we as Americans cannot change the landscape of politics and the way they are communicated simply by being educated citizens. By educating ourselves interpersonally, the changes will force a different way of political communication in the public sphere, and ultimately change the culture of political communication in the United States.
In a previous blog, I discussed briefly how politics online affected the way politicians and pundits reacted towards certain policies, bills, and speeches given by their peers. To quote Dyson from our Hollihan book (202), these people “Give instant, rather than considered reactions.” While it can be argued that this is when politicians may be the most honest in their opinions, it nonetheless results in the soundbites heard most often on the radio and in TV, often giving us a lasting, but inaccurate impression of a candidate or political party that will ultimately be used in voting preferences. From this standpoint, an integral part of the education of the general public relies on the media to provide honest and comprehensive representations of a politician’s communication. That is something we simply cannot bank on. The solution comes from normal people forming groups and organizations (hopefully non-partisan in nature) with the intent of providing a more comprehensive view of politicians’ rhetoric, and how it matches up with their voting record overall. It is shocking to see the sheer volume of people that I have met (even in my miniscule sphere of influence) who had no idea that President Obama was in favor of the war in Afghanistan until his announcement of additional troops this week, despite his rhetoric on the matter during his campaign and the fact that his opposition to the war in Iraq was based on the claim that it would distract us from the war in Afghanistan. Organizations like votesmart.org and ontheissues.org are prototypes of the type of organization I am suggesting. But what I would like to see is a more grassroots campaign by organizations like these to provide the information on a local level, or at least present awareness campaigns that get their names out there to people who don’t know they exist.
The next step in educating America is to provide awareness as to the motives and deception behind the infotainment news groups. It is astounding how many people believe that FOX News really is ‘Fair and Balanced’, and how many of the ones that don’t still think that MSNBC is a good alternative for unbiased information. How many people watched the Colbert Report episode we discussed in class and believed him when he asserted that CNN doesn’t matter? The point is that most people are under the impression that we live in a country where all news is created equal, when this couldn’t be further from the truth. It would be unrealistic to expect to be able to shut down these outlets or even censor them, nor should we, as free speech is one of the bigger amendments. But as Jones tells us in “Entertaining Politics,” has become the “center of gravity” for conducting politics in general (Jones, 17), so it would behoove us as educators to not abandon the medium altogether. Instead, the development of new stations with the mission of existing without partisanship should be pursued, and in the absence of that at least more fervent promotion of the ones that already exist. CSPAN typically tries to stay away from partisanship, and there are even a few select journalists on the infotainment networks who take their responsibilities as journalists seriously enough to at least attempt to keep their partisanship to themselves (Larry King comes to mind). Dr. Anderson expressed has expressed her approval of the Charlie Rose show in terms of nonpartisan education on public policy. On the radio front, Public Radio International was the choice of the professor. In any case, the promotion and development of these networks as crucial options will go a long way towards educating the public.
As cynical as it seems, we must also learn to not take politicians at their word. In the ‘Post-Watergate Era,” candidates have learned that it is important while in the public eye to go along with any social norms or values that will appease the general public, due to increased media scrutiny. What this means is that a politician will say anything if put on the spot in order to keep his popularity with the people where he wants it. But that does not necessarily mean he will vote that way. President Obama during campaigning really emphasized bipartisanship, and even overcoming partisanship altogether. It was what everyone wanted, and sounded great, but upon review of his voting record, one could find that Obama during his time in the Senate actually had the most liberal voting record of any senator, and at that point one has to ask themselves, “Is he really going to act bipartisan with that kind of record? Especially with an almost supermajority leftist congress?” And Obama certainly isn’t the first to use this technique. President Bush used lies to move from Afghanistan into Iraq because he knew he wouldn’t get permission to do so otherwise, President Clinton lied about cheating on his wife even though that in itself would not have gotten him impeached, while the lie ultimately did. The list goes on and on, but the point is that if we as citizens do not educate ourselves on these matters, things will never change.
Ultimately, education is the way to improve political communication. If politicians begin to understand that they cannot hide behind infotainment media anymore and count on their support to keep the truth from surfacing, they will eventually have to change their ways. If politicians feel the pressure of being potentially voted out of office if they do not follow through with campaign promises, they may be more inclined to live up to them. If politicians feel that they can’t get away with lying during campaigns, they will move away from it. This is how you change the culture of political communication. Too many politicians have forgotten that they work for the people, but they like their jobs too much to not listen if they know we are mighty enough to have them ousted. A more intelligent voting class can accomplish that task easily, but we have to get their first.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Religion in Politics
Let me start out by saying that I don’t believe that separation of church and state exists, and it’s possible that it never has. Originally, separation of church and state was created for the benefit of the church. With a longstanding history in England dating back to the early Middle Ages of the King and his government having their hand in all of the church’s affairs and manipulating the church to get what they wanted, the united States’ forefathers wrote the language into the constitution to allow the church to be able to flourish without the hand of the government forcing them into anything. Since then however, it is my contention that the church has had an influence in politics, whether it was trying to or not.
In the beginning of our country’s history, the influence of the church was subtle. As early as 1815, there is evidence that Thomas Jefferson used religious principles to help in his judgment in making good laws for the United States. His quote as shown in class from a letter to P.H. Wendover read “Religion, as well as reason, confirms the soundness of those principles on which our government has been founded and its rights asserted,” showing his faith in religion to help guide him in his writing of the Declaration of Independence. Today, it could be argued that religion is the driving force behind the stance of literally every politician in America on social policies. For the religious right, the relationship is easy to see. Former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, who was a Baptist Minister, has made no bones about his religious and moral objections to abortion, even likening it to slavery during the Civil War (http://www.ontheissues.org/Governor/Mike_Huckabee_Abortion.htm). Seeing the ties to Christianity and how they relate to stances on things like abortion and gay rights are easy to see. What can be confusing is how the stances of atheists on these issues relate to the topic of religion. While there is only one openly atheist congressman in the United States, House democrat Pete Stark, he has perhaps the most notoriously pro-choice stance in the House, even voting ‘no’ on the ban of partial-birth abortions (http://www.ontheissues.org/CA/Pete_Stark.htm). In addition, Stark is at the forefront of the gay rights movement in America, even going so far as to propose a bill that would cut off federal funding to any adoption agency that held a stance against same-sex couples adoptions (http://www.towleroad.com/2009/10/rep-pete-stark-introduces-antidiscrimination-adoption-bill.html). Although no politician would ever admit this, his radical views that are in staunch opposition to the religious right’s own radical views can reasonably be seen as directly influencd by religion, or in this case a lack-thereof. In addition, the fact that any politicians claiming to be Christians who share views similar to Stark’s are subjected to a constant barrage of questions inquiring as to the legitimacy of their faith and their justifications for voting against what Christianity views as a human right to life is further proof of religion’s influence on social views in the United States.
The reserve readings for this course on political rhetoric and religion give us clues on the influence of religion on politics and its rise in recent years. The Family Research Council, founded in 1983, is an organization that was founded on promoting marriage, the family, and the right to life as a national policy (http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?c=ABOUT_FRC). A quick glance at this organization’s website swiftly expels any notion that this is purely a religious group, with videos showing members of Congress promoting their views and even their logo sporting the U.S. Capital Building. Their history shows that they have partnered with Focus on the Family on a number of issues, and even talk about James Dobson’s work with President Jimmy Carter as a starting point to their organization. Similarly, Dr. Dobson’s Focus on the Family website shows their commitment to social policies through links showing their views on issues like the right to life, definition of marriage, and even a Social Issues link defining views on things ranging from pornography, to gambling, even to abstinence and education. Indeed Dobson seems to be a critical figure in the religious right’s movement to get their voices heard in Washington. The Boston Globe’s article on Dobson as standing “in the vanguard of a crusade by evangelical Christians to place their agenda at the forefront of public debate over presidential and congressional elections, judicial appointments, gay marriage, and the ''life issues" of abortion, euthanasia, and embryonic stem-cell research” (https://ramct.colostate.edu/webct/urw/lc5116011.tp0/cobaltMainFrame.dowebct). Dobson even stepped down as board chairman of Focus on the Family earlier this year, with the intention to make his ‘crusade’ even more politically oriented (http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/27/dobson.steps.down/index.html).
On the other side of the coin, Jim Wallis heads the movement of religious progressives in the United States. In our class readings, an interview with Wallis revealed that he believes that the religious right defines moral values in only the most narrow terms, focusing on “wedge issues like abortion and gay marriage” (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2005/03/gods-politics-interview-jim-wallis). Wallis would like to see Christians focus more on issues like poverty. In another video interview we watched of Wallis in class, he really pushes the poverty issue, insisting time and time again that the Bible has literally hundreds of verses pertaining to this issue. He also argues in this written interview linked above that while he doesn’t agree with the zealots on the right, the left does not seem comfortable with the rhetoric of religion. Wallis and others claim that Catholics and other Christian denominations are not in the pocket of the religious right, but democrats seem to have no idea on how to reach that audience (https://ramct.colostate.edu/webct/urw/lc5116011.tp0/cobaltMainFrame.dowebct). The funny thing is he does not seem all that comfortable with religious rhetoric when pushed on the issue of abortion. In his TV interview, he avoids the question of abortion time and time again when posed by his interviewer (I would post the interview, but I don’t see it linked anywhere on our class page and unfortunately I would have no idea how to look it up, as I don’t know the network it was on or the interviewer). Wallis and other religious progressives such as the Sojourners hold other values as human rights, such as the right to health care and answers to poverty (http://www.sojo.net/).
Last but not least, it just wouldn’t be a blog without a little bit of my own opinion to finish it off. I think that it’s important to note that a very important piece of rhetoric used on both sides of this debate is a simple phrase; “Human Right.” I would just like to point out that in a literal sense this phrase does not mean anything. What one considers to be a ‘human right’ is completely subjective. In political rhetoric this phrase more than anything seems to be a ‘buzz word’ or ‘catch-phrase’ that politicians and pundits attach to an issue that they would like the people to believe that there is only one way to see the issue. I could say that ‘eating meat is a human right’ or that ‘having a front porch is a human right,’ but that doesn’t make it true (in fact it would be downright ridiculous). So I guess my point in this is to be careful as political ‘consumers’ what you believe when you hear someone thumping their views on a certain issue as a human right. Instead, ask whether or not it is good for the country and its people, and ignore the puffery that goes along with any issue.
In the beginning of our country’s history, the influence of the church was subtle. As early as 1815, there is evidence that Thomas Jefferson used religious principles to help in his judgment in making good laws for the United States. His quote as shown in class from a letter to P.H. Wendover read “Religion, as well as reason, confirms the soundness of those principles on which our government has been founded and its rights asserted,” showing his faith in religion to help guide him in his writing of the Declaration of Independence. Today, it could be argued that religion is the driving force behind the stance of literally every politician in America on social policies. For the religious right, the relationship is easy to see. Former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, who was a Baptist Minister, has made no bones about his religious and moral objections to abortion, even likening it to slavery during the Civil War (http://www.ontheissues.org/Governor/Mike_Huckabee_Abortion.htm). Seeing the ties to Christianity and how they relate to stances on things like abortion and gay rights are easy to see. What can be confusing is how the stances of atheists on these issues relate to the topic of religion. While there is only one openly atheist congressman in the United States, House democrat Pete Stark, he has perhaps the most notoriously pro-choice stance in the House, even voting ‘no’ on the ban of partial-birth abortions (http://www.ontheissues.org/CA/Pete_Stark.htm). In addition, Stark is at the forefront of the gay rights movement in America, even going so far as to propose a bill that would cut off federal funding to any adoption agency that held a stance against same-sex couples adoptions (http://www.towleroad.com/2009/10/rep-pete-stark-introduces-antidiscrimination-adoption-bill.html). Although no politician would ever admit this, his radical views that are in staunch opposition to the religious right’s own radical views can reasonably be seen as directly influencd by religion, or in this case a lack-thereof. In addition, the fact that any politicians claiming to be Christians who share views similar to Stark’s are subjected to a constant barrage of questions inquiring as to the legitimacy of their faith and their justifications for voting against what Christianity views as a human right to life is further proof of religion’s influence on social views in the United States.
The reserve readings for this course on political rhetoric and religion give us clues on the influence of religion on politics and its rise in recent years. The Family Research Council, founded in 1983, is an organization that was founded on promoting marriage, the family, and the right to life as a national policy (http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?c=ABOUT_FRC). A quick glance at this organization’s website swiftly expels any notion that this is purely a religious group, with videos showing members of Congress promoting their views and even their logo sporting the U.S. Capital Building. Their history shows that they have partnered with Focus on the Family on a number of issues, and even talk about James Dobson’s work with President Jimmy Carter as a starting point to their organization. Similarly, Dr. Dobson’s Focus on the Family website shows their commitment to social policies through links showing their views on issues like the right to life, definition of marriage, and even a Social Issues link defining views on things ranging from pornography, to gambling, even to abstinence and education. Indeed Dobson seems to be a critical figure in the religious right’s movement to get their voices heard in Washington. The Boston Globe’s article on Dobson as standing “in the vanguard of a crusade by evangelical Christians to place their agenda at the forefront of public debate over presidential and congressional elections, judicial appointments, gay marriage, and the ''life issues" of abortion, euthanasia, and embryonic stem-cell research” (https://ramct.colostate.edu/webct/urw/lc5116011.tp0/cobaltMainFrame.dowebct). Dobson even stepped down as board chairman of Focus on the Family earlier this year, with the intention to make his ‘crusade’ even more politically oriented (http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/27/dobson.steps.down/index.html).
On the other side of the coin, Jim Wallis heads the movement of religious progressives in the United States. In our class readings, an interview with Wallis revealed that he believes that the religious right defines moral values in only the most narrow terms, focusing on “wedge issues like abortion and gay marriage” (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2005/03/gods-politics-interview-jim-wallis). Wallis would like to see Christians focus more on issues like poverty. In another video interview we watched of Wallis in class, he really pushes the poverty issue, insisting time and time again that the Bible has literally hundreds of verses pertaining to this issue. He also argues in this written interview linked above that while he doesn’t agree with the zealots on the right, the left does not seem comfortable with the rhetoric of religion. Wallis and others claim that Catholics and other Christian denominations are not in the pocket of the religious right, but democrats seem to have no idea on how to reach that audience (https://ramct.colostate.edu/webct/urw/lc5116011.tp0/cobaltMainFrame.dowebct). The funny thing is he does not seem all that comfortable with religious rhetoric when pushed on the issue of abortion. In his TV interview, he avoids the question of abortion time and time again when posed by his interviewer (I would post the interview, but I don’t see it linked anywhere on our class page and unfortunately I would have no idea how to look it up, as I don’t know the network it was on or the interviewer). Wallis and other religious progressives such as the Sojourners hold other values as human rights, such as the right to health care and answers to poverty (http://www.sojo.net/).
Last but not least, it just wouldn’t be a blog without a little bit of my own opinion to finish it off. I think that it’s important to note that a very important piece of rhetoric used on both sides of this debate is a simple phrase; “Human Right.” I would just like to point out that in a literal sense this phrase does not mean anything. What one considers to be a ‘human right’ is completely subjective. In political rhetoric this phrase more than anything seems to be a ‘buzz word’ or ‘catch-phrase’ that politicians and pundits attach to an issue that they would like the people to believe that there is only one way to see the issue. I could say that ‘eating meat is a human right’ or that ‘having a front porch is a human right,’ but that doesn’t make it true (in fact it would be downright ridiculous). So I guess my point in this is to be careful as political ‘consumers’ what you believe when you hear someone thumping their views on a certain issue as a human right. Instead, ask whether or not it is good for the country and its people, and ignore the puffery that goes along with any issue.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
The New Age of Politics Online
This blog’s topic of “Politics Online” ties in quite nicely to a previous blog posting of mine about political news and advertising. The world of politics has used the age of technology to create new forums to reach out to new demographics and attempt to relate to more and more voters. These efforts have seen mixed results for candidates across the board, and there have been other repercussions of using the internet as a medium for getting messages out and names heard. In this blog I will discuss the internet as a medium for politics, its effect on political campaigns, and news media’s contributions and accessibility online.
Hollihan describes the internet as “a global computer network that enables users to send email, other forms of text messages, graphics, and video” (Hollihan, 199). With 88% of Americans aged 18-29 years old identifying themselves as internet users (ibid, 200), politicians would be crazy not to try and appeal to this demographic, which statistically has been the least active in terms of voter turnout, and historically has been labeled apathetic towards politics. In other words, to politicians this was an almost completely untapped group of potential voters that could sway the outcome of any election if only they felt that they had a reason to show up. The medium for these politicians to best communicate the issues that they feel are the most pertinent to this demographic is the internet. In addition, the low-cost of using the internet allows campaigns that would otherwise be little more than a footnote during an election to instead be able to connect with their grassroots support and become a very real contender for elected positions. Today some of the most common ways of getting through to young adults on the internet are posting videos on youtube.com, mass messages to anyone with an email address, and even enlisting friends through facebook, a social networking site used primarily (and up until the last year or two, almost exclusively) by the young adult demographic. All of these techniques were not only prevalent, but vital to success in the 2008 election, and if a candidate were to refuse to cater to this new medium, they would be ridden off almost immediately (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/us/politics/11paul.html).
The internet has been a vital part of political campaigns since 1990, when candidates started using email to convey campaign messages (Hollihan, 201). But when Jesse Ventura won the governorship of Minnesota using a campaign where almost two-thirds of his total funding was generated through the internet, that was when the internet really took off (ibid, 201). In 2008, Ron Paul’s campaign would have been over before it had even begun, but his fierce opposition to the war in Iraq and radical thoughts on abolishing the Federal Reserve were a hit among libertarian insiders. This underground popularity led to internet videos and reviews of Paul’s policies, and ultimately kept his presidential race alive. His campaign in fact would eventually have a day where over $4 million was raised, a record among Republican candidates that year, most of which had far more widespread and vocal followings than Paul’s (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/us/politics/11paul.html).
Another benefit of the internet in campaigns is the quick and comprehensive spread of information. In an age where ‘negative’ and ‘smear’ campaign ads are so prevalent (and effective), it is important for candidates to get their side of a story heard in order to keep the damage done by the smears to a minimum. The internet allows for any candidate to issue a statement or a position and know that the entire world will have access to it in a matter of minutes. This was prevalent in the Clinton vs. Dole campaign in 1996 where both candidates engaged in a game of one-ups-manship via emailed responses to supporters, media, and undecided voters. This is one strategy of the internet that can backfire, however. Dyson comments that in this age “politicians and pundits give instant rather than considered reactions” (Hollihan, 202), which may entice voters, but is certainly not always what candidates would prefer.
Another way that internet media in campaigning may have a negative impact on candidates is the access that the new age of technology creates for the general public. Any indiscretion by a candidate at any time can be caught on camera, and with camera phones and internet phones that are on the market today, that indiscretion can be posted online in mere minutes, instantly damaging credibility. That’s just today, but a frightening prospect looms on the horizon as well. Possibly within the next ten years, and certainly within the next fifteen, we will have a presidential candidate who had a profile on facebook during their college days, and pictures of them will still be out there. And unless that candidate lived under a rock, many of those pictures will probably be less than ‘presidential.’ At that point, the question will have to be asked whether or not the United States can deal with physical evidence that their president was once a kid too, or will they resort to simply electing the most sheltered candidate.
The internet has also allowed us to access political news online 24 hours a day. While the proportion of people who read a newspaper on a daily business has been steadily declining for years, the number of people who go online to get their daily news has climbed to 31% by 2004, rapidly approaching the numbers of daily newspaper readers (Hollihan, 209). 57% of people went online for election coverage during the 2004 campaigns, up from 4% in the 1996 elections, and 25% of the total adult population reported that they learned something online that influenced how they would vote that November (ibid, 209). Most of the time we would see this as a good thing and access to all kinds of information is never bad, but the question must be raised as to the quality of information that has been sought and attained via the internet in recent years. My blog on the concept of infotainment in the news media suggested that most of the major outlets online for political coverage have extreme biases towards one side of the aisle or the other, and yet a simple Google search for ‘political news’ pulls up CNN, MSNBC, and FOX News (the top three major infotainment outlets with complaints about party biases) in the top five results. Perhaps more startling is the fact that The Onion, a political satire newspaper, was also on the first page. While Americans would like to believe they are more informed as a result of the accessibility of news media online, the sad truth is that most Americans are simply getting the spin on issues that a particular party wants them to hear, and without digging a little bit deeper in search of unbiased information, most of them will take this information as true facts upon which to base their votes, a scary proposition.
As you can see, the subject of politics online has become vastly popular in recent years, and the potential for better-informed voters and an unprecedented number of options in candidates to vote for thanks to the wide availability of visibility over the internet is astounding. But the potential for abuse is also frightening, with lies and spin running rampant across cyberspace. Once again, this new availability of technology comes with new responsibilities for the American public, and we must work harder to find good sources of information and be careful of what we believe that is found online, as well as increase awareness of the dangers of believing everything online for those who may not have the ability to discover these things for themselves.
Hollihan, Thomas A. Uncivil Wars: Political Campaigns in a Media Age. 2nd ed. Bedford/St. Martin's, 2008. Print.
Hollihan describes the internet as “a global computer network that enables users to send email, other forms of text messages, graphics, and video” (Hollihan, 199). With 88% of Americans aged 18-29 years old identifying themselves as internet users (ibid, 200), politicians would be crazy not to try and appeal to this demographic, which statistically has been the least active in terms of voter turnout, and historically has been labeled apathetic towards politics. In other words, to politicians this was an almost completely untapped group of potential voters that could sway the outcome of any election if only they felt that they had a reason to show up. The medium for these politicians to best communicate the issues that they feel are the most pertinent to this demographic is the internet. In addition, the low-cost of using the internet allows campaigns that would otherwise be little more than a footnote during an election to instead be able to connect with their grassroots support and become a very real contender for elected positions. Today some of the most common ways of getting through to young adults on the internet are posting videos on youtube.com, mass messages to anyone with an email address, and even enlisting friends through facebook, a social networking site used primarily (and up until the last year or two, almost exclusively) by the young adult demographic. All of these techniques were not only prevalent, but vital to success in the 2008 election, and if a candidate were to refuse to cater to this new medium, they would be ridden off almost immediately (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/us/politics/11paul.html).
The internet has been a vital part of political campaigns since 1990, when candidates started using email to convey campaign messages (Hollihan, 201). But when Jesse Ventura won the governorship of Minnesota using a campaign where almost two-thirds of his total funding was generated through the internet, that was when the internet really took off (ibid, 201). In 2008, Ron Paul’s campaign would have been over before it had even begun, but his fierce opposition to the war in Iraq and radical thoughts on abolishing the Federal Reserve were a hit among libertarian insiders. This underground popularity led to internet videos and reviews of Paul’s policies, and ultimately kept his presidential race alive. His campaign in fact would eventually have a day where over $4 million was raised, a record among Republican candidates that year, most of which had far more widespread and vocal followings than Paul’s (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/us/politics/11paul.html).
Another benefit of the internet in campaigns is the quick and comprehensive spread of information. In an age where ‘negative’ and ‘smear’ campaign ads are so prevalent (and effective), it is important for candidates to get their side of a story heard in order to keep the damage done by the smears to a minimum. The internet allows for any candidate to issue a statement or a position and know that the entire world will have access to it in a matter of minutes. This was prevalent in the Clinton vs. Dole campaign in 1996 where both candidates engaged in a game of one-ups-manship via emailed responses to supporters, media, and undecided voters. This is one strategy of the internet that can backfire, however. Dyson comments that in this age “politicians and pundits give instant rather than considered reactions” (Hollihan, 202), which may entice voters, but is certainly not always what candidates would prefer.
Another way that internet media in campaigning may have a negative impact on candidates is the access that the new age of technology creates for the general public. Any indiscretion by a candidate at any time can be caught on camera, and with camera phones and internet phones that are on the market today, that indiscretion can be posted online in mere minutes, instantly damaging credibility. That’s just today, but a frightening prospect looms on the horizon as well. Possibly within the next ten years, and certainly within the next fifteen, we will have a presidential candidate who had a profile on facebook during their college days, and pictures of them will still be out there. And unless that candidate lived under a rock, many of those pictures will probably be less than ‘presidential.’ At that point, the question will have to be asked whether or not the United States can deal with physical evidence that their president was once a kid too, or will they resort to simply electing the most sheltered candidate.
The internet has also allowed us to access political news online 24 hours a day. While the proportion of people who read a newspaper on a daily business has been steadily declining for years, the number of people who go online to get their daily news has climbed to 31% by 2004, rapidly approaching the numbers of daily newspaper readers (Hollihan, 209). 57% of people went online for election coverage during the 2004 campaigns, up from 4% in the 1996 elections, and 25% of the total adult population reported that they learned something online that influenced how they would vote that November (ibid, 209). Most of the time we would see this as a good thing and access to all kinds of information is never bad, but the question must be raised as to the quality of information that has been sought and attained via the internet in recent years. My blog on the concept of infotainment in the news media suggested that most of the major outlets online for political coverage have extreme biases towards one side of the aisle or the other, and yet a simple Google search for ‘political news’ pulls up CNN, MSNBC, and FOX News (the top three major infotainment outlets with complaints about party biases) in the top five results. Perhaps more startling is the fact that The Onion, a political satire newspaper, was also on the first page. While Americans would like to believe they are more informed as a result of the accessibility of news media online, the sad truth is that most Americans are simply getting the spin on issues that a particular party wants them to hear, and without digging a little bit deeper in search of unbiased information, most of them will take this information as true facts upon which to base their votes, a scary proposition.
As you can see, the subject of politics online has become vastly popular in recent years, and the potential for better-informed voters and an unprecedented number of options in candidates to vote for thanks to the wide availability of visibility over the internet is astounding. But the potential for abuse is also frightening, with lies and spin running rampant across cyberspace. Once again, this new availability of technology comes with new responsibilities for the American public, and we must work harder to find good sources of information and be careful of what we believe that is found online, as well as increase awareness of the dangers of believing everything online for those who may not have the ability to discover these things for themselves.
Hollihan, Thomas A. Uncivil Wars: Political Campaigns in a Media Age. 2nd ed. Bedford/St. Martin's, 2008. Print.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Political Polling Common Errors
Political polling in the United States can be a dicey subject. While there are proven methods for getting fair and unbiased results in polling, in the United States citizens are almost never given these results freely. As most of the ‘infotainment’ networks out there fund, produce, and advertise their own polls that serve the agendas of the parties they support, we as Americans are forced to do our own research and come up with our own methods for finding unbiased polling. While it’s not a terrible prospect for Americans to do their own research on candidates and issues (in fact it is ideal for a true working democracy), I think we all know that the sad truth is that most Americans will not be doing this research any time soon, and instead will be relying on the information provided to them on cable news channels. But I digress… In this blog I will be discussing common polling errors and biases, including those involving sampling, survey construction, and even campaign “push polling,” and hopefully showing some good examples of all of these errors in practice.
An easy glance at the president’s job approval rating polls on pollster.com (http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/jobapproval-obama.php) reveals that two of the leading polling organizations, Gallup and Rasmussen, have overwhelmingly incompatible numbers when it comes to President Obama’s approval rating, with Gallup showing a 52% approval rating against only a 38% disapproval rating, and Rasmussen showing a 47% approval rating against a staggering 52% disapproval rating. Let’s say for a second that it would be unfair to assume that either one of these polling organizations is affiliated with or supports one political party or the other. It’s a fair assumption, as neither one has ever had visible problems with push polling or reports of campaign financing. This being the case, the problem with the discrepancy between these numbers could have been in the sampling of the polls. Researchers try to get a sample size that is substantial enough to get a sampling error of plus or minus 4% or less (Hollihan, 174). Since the difference between these numbers is much higher than that, perhaps one or the other of these organizations did not get a sufficient sample size. However, this seems unlikely since both organizations are professional pollsters and as such are well-versed in the mathematics of sample sizes. A more likely explanation is that the sample sizes that were obtained by one, the other, or both groups were not accurate representatives of the American public. It is possible that despite precautions and efforts to give everyone in the population an equal chance of being polled, that the sample was skewed by large numbers of certain groups (ibid, 174). Perhaps for example, Rasmussen received a disproportionately large number of rural respondents, leading to a more unfavorable viewing of the president. Conversely, perhaps Gallup got a lot of respondents from urbanized neighborhoods or a lot of African-American respondents, making their viewing more favorable of the president.
According to Hollihan, common problems with survey questions include oversimplification of issues; loaded, biased and unclear questions; and making inferences of the results of a poll for questions that were never asked (ibid, 175). Recently in Virginia, a poll was conducted to see if Virginians were in favor of closing the ‘Gun Show Loophole,’ with the pro-gun state falling surprisingly on the side of closing the so-called loophole (http://twitter.com/ProtestEasyGuns/status/4968881627). Unfortunately, the question in the poll said very little about what this loophole actually was. The problem was that people see the word ‘loophole’ and automatically assume that there is something illegal or shady going on. The ‘loophole’ in this case involves a buyer buying from an ‘unlicensed dealer.’ This is perfectly legal under state law, and selling guns at a gun show is one of the safest ways to sell firearms, but the word ‘unlicensed’ in this case once again leads those being polled that something illegal is going on, or that the dealer is in some way shady or untrustworthy. The survey question in this way has a large amount of loaded language, and one could argue also that despite the appearance of a clear question, what the inquiry leaves out makes the question’s language more opaque than what it ought to be. Hollihan uses two similar examples of the Nixon and Clinton impeachments, in both cases showing how those being polled often did not understand what they were being asked. In the case of Nixon, the word ‘impeachment’ did not agree with people, but when asked about the trial of Nixon without the operative word in the question, they were in favor of it (Hollihan, 175-176). In Clinton’s case, some members of Congress voted for impeachment, but didn’t necessarily want him removed from office, further muddying the issue for voters (ibid, 176).
Political “push polling” is another way of getting inaccurate results in polling. With sampling problems and even survey question problems, often times the mistakes made that create inaccurate polls are just that: mistakes. The same is not true for “push polling.” Push polling is the deliberate attempt by a pollster (or campaign posing as a pollster) to influence someone under the guise that they are simply conducting an honest poll (Hollihan, 177). A recent example of this is a poll in Ohio that was conducted over the phone during the 2008 presidential election. The pollster would ask the persona series of ‘agree/disagree’ questions about Barack Obama. Sample questions are as follows: “agree/disagree that Obama is too inexperienced to be President,” “agree/disagree that Obama is too risky of a choice for President,” “agree/disagree that Obama as President would pose a threat to our national security;” and you get the idea from there (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/11/nasty-anti-obama-push-pol_n_125607.html). You see, even though the questions gave the person the chance to agree or disagree, every question is framed in a negative way towards the candidate. This particular poll did not care about peoples’ responses at all; rather it was intended to make people who planned on voting for Obama re-think their vote and perhaps go with a different candidate instead. Hollihan recounts a similar example of push polling by the Bush campaign in 2000, one that asked agree/disagree questions framing John McCain’s stances on key issues in a negative light. This campaign took it even a step further though, asking McCain supporters (in the South no less) if they would re-think their vote if they knew McCain had fathered an illegitimate black child (McCain has an adopted Bangladeshi daughter) (Hollihan, 178-179). This inference put the Senator’s moral credibility into question in a key demographic, and who knows if that played a major role in George W. Bush’s victory in the Republican Primaries that year.
As you can see, nothing in politics can ever be easy and cut-and-dry, and political polling gets very complicated. Biased pollsters are always looking to sway votes; reckless amateurs can often throw off accuracy through hastily written and poorly thought out questions; and even when we get an accurate and unbiased polling organization, sampling can cause even the most neutral of polls to become skewed if the conditions are at all wrong, resulting in vastly different numbers for the same polls done by different organizations. What we must continue to try and do is work to reduce the number of errors and biases in polls in an effort to keep polls relevant in today’s political landscape. In order to do so, as Americans we must reject the polls fed to us by television and radio infotainment, and instead do our own research and find our own sources polling that we find to be reliable and accurate for all aspects of the political spectrum.
Works Cited
Hollihan, Thomas A. Uncivil Wars: Political Campaigns in a Media Age. 2nd ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2009. Print.
"PE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd" //1){setTimeout(function(){onCondition(D,C,A-1,B)},B)}}};//]] / Protest Easy Guns: 8 out of 10 Virginians wan ..." Twitter. Web. 27 Oct. 2009..
"Pollster.com: National Job Approval: Pres. Barack Obama." Pollster.com - Political Surveys and Election Polls, Trends, Charts and Analysis. Web. 27 Oct. 2009..
Stein, Sam. "Nasty Anti-Obama Push Poll Launched In Ohio." Breaking News and Opinion on The Huffington Post. 11 Sept. 2008. Web. 27 Oct. 2009..
An easy glance at the president’s job approval rating polls on pollster.com (http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/jobapproval-obama.php) reveals that two of the leading polling organizations, Gallup and Rasmussen, have overwhelmingly incompatible numbers when it comes to President Obama’s approval rating, with Gallup showing a 52% approval rating against only a 38% disapproval rating, and Rasmussen showing a 47% approval rating against a staggering 52% disapproval rating. Let’s say for a second that it would be unfair to assume that either one of these polling organizations is affiliated with or supports one political party or the other. It’s a fair assumption, as neither one has ever had visible problems with push polling or reports of campaign financing. This being the case, the problem with the discrepancy between these numbers could have been in the sampling of the polls. Researchers try to get a sample size that is substantial enough to get a sampling error of plus or minus 4% or less (Hollihan, 174). Since the difference between these numbers is much higher than that, perhaps one or the other of these organizations did not get a sufficient sample size. However, this seems unlikely since both organizations are professional pollsters and as such are well-versed in the mathematics of sample sizes. A more likely explanation is that the sample sizes that were obtained by one, the other, or both groups were not accurate representatives of the American public. It is possible that despite precautions and efforts to give everyone in the population an equal chance of being polled, that the sample was skewed by large numbers of certain groups (ibid, 174). Perhaps for example, Rasmussen received a disproportionately large number of rural respondents, leading to a more unfavorable viewing of the president. Conversely, perhaps Gallup got a lot of respondents from urbanized neighborhoods or a lot of African-American respondents, making their viewing more favorable of the president.
According to Hollihan, common problems with survey questions include oversimplification of issues; loaded, biased and unclear questions; and making inferences of the results of a poll for questions that were never asked (ibid, 175). Recently in Virginia, a poll was conducted to see if Virginians were in favor of closing the ‘Gun Show Loophole,’ with the pro-gun state falling surprisingly on the side of closing the so-called loophole (http://twitter.com/ProtestEasyGuns/status/4968881627). Unfortunately, the question in the poll said very little about what this loophole actually was. The problem was that people see the word ‘loophole’ and automatically assume that there is something illegal or shady going on. The ‘loophole’ in this case involves a buyer buying from an ‘unlicensed dealer.’ This is perfectly legal under state law, and selling guns at a gun show is one of the safest ways to sell firearms, but the word ‘unlicensed’ in this case once again leads those being polled that something illegal is going on, or that the dealer is in some way shady or untrustworthy. The survey question in this way has a large amount of loaded language, and one could argue also that despite the appearance of a clear question, what the inquiry leaves out makes the question’s language more opaque than what it ought to be. Hollihan uses two similar examples of the Nixon and Clinton impeachments, in both cases showing how those being polled often did not understand what they were being asked. In the case of Nixon, the word ‘impeachment’ did not agree with people, but when asked about the trial of Nixon without the operative word in the question, they were in favor of it (Hollihan, 175-176). In Clinton’s case, some members of Congress voted for impeachment, but didn’t necessarily want him removed from office, further muddying the issue for voters (ibid, 176).
Political “push polling” is another way of getting inaccurate results in polling. With sampling problems and even survey question problems, often times the mistakes made that create inaccurate polls are just that: mistakes. The same is not true for “push polling.” Push polling is the deliberate attempt by a pollster (or campaign posing as a pollster) to influence someone under the guise that they are simply conducting an honest poll (Hollihan, 177). A recent example of this is a poll in Ohio that was conducted over the phone during the 2008 presidential election. The pollster would ask the persona series of ‘agree/disagree’ questions about Barack Obama. Sample questions are as follows: “agree/disagree that Obama is too inexperienced to be President,” “agree/disagree that Obama is too risky of a choice for President,” “agree/disagree that Obama as President would pose a threat to our national security;” and you get the idea from there (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/11/nasty-anti-obama-push-pol_n_125607.html). You see, even though the questions gave the person the chance to agree or disagree, every question is framed in a negative way towards the candidate. This particular poll did not care about peoples’ responses at all; rather it was intended to make people who planned on voting for Obama re-think their vote and perhaps go with a different candidate instead. Hollihan recounts a similar example of push polling by the Bush campaign in 2000, one that asked agree/disagree questions framing John McCain’s stances on key issues in a negative light. This campaign took it even a step further though, asking McCain supporters (in the South no less) if they would re-think their vote if they knew McCain had fathered an illegitimate black child (McCain has an adopted Bangladeshi daughter) (Hollihan, 178-179). This inference put the Senator’s moral credibility into question in a key demographic, and who knows if that played a major role in George W. Bush’s victory in the Republican Primaries that year.
As you can see, nothing in politics can ever be easy and cut-and-dry, and political polling gets very complicated. Biased pollsters are always looking to sway votes; reckless amateurs can often throw off accuracy through hastily written and poorly thought out questions; and even when we get an accurate and unbiased polling organization, sampling can cause even the most neutral of polls to become skewed if the conditions are at all wrong, resulting in vastly different numbers for the same polls done by different organizations. What we must continue to try and do is work to reduce the number of errors and biases in polls in an effort to keep polls relevant in today’s political landscape. In order to do so, as Americans we must reject the polls fed to us by television and radio infotainment, and instead do our own research and find our own sources polling that we find to be reliable and accurate for all aspects of the political spectrum.
Works Cited
Hollihan, Thomas A. Uncivil Wars: Political Campaigns in a Media Age. 2nd ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2009. Print.
"PE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd" //1){setTimeout(function(){onCondition(D,C,A-1,B)},B)}}};//]] / Protest Easy Guns: 8 out of 10 Virginians wan ..." Twitter. Web. 27 Oct. 2009.
"Pollster.com: National Job Approval: Pres. Barack Obama." Pollster.com - Political Surveys and Election Polls, Trends, Charts and Analysis. Web. 27 Oct. 2009.
Stein, Sam. "Nasty Anti-Obama Push Poll Launched In Ohio." Breaking News and Opinion on The Huffington Post. 11 Sept. 2008. Web. 27 Oct. 2009.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Infotainment and Political Advertising
For this week’s blog, the prompts I was forced to choose between were “Political News” and “Political Advertising.” I smirked a bit when I saw these, as I consider the two topics to be chief contributors to the problem of voter ignorance and misinformation on the true issues. So in trying to find a good source to write this blog, I figured I would look to what I consider to be the two biggest names in punditry; FOX News (http://www.foxnews.com/) and MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/). Leading the charge in today’s political “news,” or what I like to call ‘info-tainment’ (used from here on out without quotations and without the hyphen in the middle, as its use here is mainly to emphasize the two words it combines), the websites for these two entities offer a look at the major political news sources, which conveniently enough double as political advertising for the respective political parties that they insist they do not favor. As you will see, a brief trip around even just the home pages for these two sites and the stories attached to them can tell us a great deal about the key platforms and issues of the Democratic (MSNBC) and Republican (FOX News) Parties. As almost everybody knows, these outlets are both also television networks, which along with their websites allows them to reach an astounding number of people, especially now since the average American spends more waking hours watching TV than they do communicating interpersonally (Hollihan, 108).
The first thing that caught my eye on the two sites was the issue of health care. No issue has been more widely discussed over the past several weeks than health care, and specifically the bills that have been written and re-written over the past few months in an effort to reform the system. Surprisingly enough, FOX only has one story about health care reform on the front page of their website, compared to five links to stories about health care on the MSNBC. Furthermore, the language that is used in headlining the articles on health care is worth noting. On FOX, the headline can be read as “Dems Pile on Health Insurers over Critical Report.” This headline sends very specific communications messages. First, using the phrase ‘critical report’ is an attempt to remove responsibility from the health insurers, inferring that the criticalness of the report was outside of their control, when in reality there were probably some things the insurers could have done differently if they wanted to receive a better review. Some may consider that to be a bit of a stretch, but the other part of the headline I feel is even more obvious language. The term ‘pile on’ almost universally in the English Language carries a negative connotation with it. For a conservative news source to say the liberals are ‘piling on’ a group that they are also painting as a victim in the headline almost certainly is trying to send a message. Similarly, the liberal MSNBC uses strategic wording in their article headlines designed to make Republicans look bad. One headline suggests that a Republican senator has ties to a major insurer (insurers are evil on this site). When one reads the article, the facts supporting this claim are severely lacking, but the headline is what most people see first and how many will form their opinion, especially those who choose not to read the whole article. Another article praises a man for treating any and all patients that come to him without any form of health insurance, but does not once mentions the repercussions of doing so or the burden that it could potentially cause tax payers.
But health reform is not the only issue where these two sites show their support along party lines. On the FOX News site there are two separate articles discussing gun rights and one touching on immigration reform. On MSNBC’s site, one can find articles about gay rights and global climate change. What these articles are really doing is outline the top issues for the parties that each of these infotainment sites ‘unofficially’ represent. Democrats like to push the agenda of global warming and gay rights while the Republicans, ever conscious of homeland security like to keep the second amendment front and center along with the issue of border patrol. This is where in America we see news networks doubling as political advertising. They build up their own sides’ positions on their favorite issues while doing their best to malign the other party’s, or dismiss them altogether, as is the case with many of these articles (they don’t even mention the other sides’ position in most of them).
But perhaps the most issue that was the most telling (and the most interesting) of the issues that revealed these two infotainment giants’ political alignment is their stances towards the ongoing military action in Iraq and Afghanistan. All-told, there were no less than five stories on each of the two sites’ front pages about the war on terror and military action across the Middle East. What I found interesting about this was the way that the two sites aligned themselves. FOX’s stories featured almost universal negativity when discussing the events going on overseas. Bleak headlines focused mainly on terror-related deaths and stories that seemed to be suspicious of the Obama administration’s plans to continue the same military actions that they condemned Republicans for in order to get elected last fall. Oppositely, MSNBC’s view painted a picture of an administration making careful decisions in the Middle East and having open minds to new ideas on how to handle the current military climate overseas. What I find interesting and ironic about the take on both sides is the obvious flip-flop from the staunch positions they had during the previous administration, where the liberal side of infotainment endorsed the notion of getting completely out of the Middle East as quickly as possible while the conservative side advocated staying as long as it took.
This kind of hypocrisy promotes the kind of partisanship that both Republicans and Democrats in office claim to be trying to transcend, yet neither party seems to be making much of an effort to distance themselves from these infotainment outlets. I’m sure their reasoning behind it is to allow these networks to attack their opponents for them, so as not to expose themselves to criticism for running negative ‘attack ads’ (Hollihan, 158). Furthermore these news media sources are doing more than ever to keep themselves connected to their respective parties. MSNBC uses phrases in their headlines and articles like ‘the administration’ and ‘the GOP’ while words like ‘Democrats’ or ‘liberals’ are rare to come up. The reason is that they are trying to act like they are on an informal basis with the Democratic Party and their language is geared to suggest that they are simply ‘one of them.’ FOX does the exact same thing, calling out the ‘Obama Administration’ and ‘Democrats’ while almost never mentioning ‘the GOP,’ ‘conservatives,’ or ‘Republicans.’
After all of this, it is easy to see how and why political news and political advertising are so intertwined. These news outlets are two of the biggest that the American public turn to for their information about politics, and yet even a simple glimpse around their websites reveal that they are little more than political advertisements for the key issues of the parties they support, in effect ‘priming’ voters into seeing in the news again and again what they think that the public should be voting on come election time (Hollihan, 120). The beauty of this form of political advertisement is that it can have the effect of bypassing Kathleen Hall Jamieson’s “news-room guide” for thinking critically about political ads, mostly because most people reading into these infotainment outlets don’t realize that they are advertisements (Hollihan, 165). One can only hope that the continued growth and access to technology will help Americans in the future to be able to differentiate between news and infotainment political advertising, and that in the future there will be more credible news sources that have as easy access as these two media giants.
Class Readings Without Provided Link Above
Hollihan, Thomas A. Uncivil Wars: Political Campaigns in a Media Age. 2nd ed. Bedford/St. Martin's, 2008. Print.
The first thing that caught my eye on the two sites was the issue of health care. No issue has been more widely discussed over the past several weeks than health care, and specifically the bills that have been written and re-written over the past few months in an effort to reform the system. Surprisingly enough, FOX only has one story about health care reform on the front page of their website, compared to five links to stories about health care on the MSNBC. Furthermore, the language that is used in headlining the articles on health care is worth noting. On FOX, the headline can be read as “Dems Pile on Health Insurers over Critical Report.” This headline sends very specific communications messages. First, using the phrase ‘critical report’ is an attempt to remove responsibility from the health insurers, inferring that the criticalness of the report was outside of their control, when in reality there were probably some things the insurers could have done differently if they wanted to receive a better review. Some may consider that to be a bit of a stretch, but the other part of the headline I feel is even more obvious language. The term ‘pile on’ almost universally in the English Language carries a negative connotation with it. For a conservative news source to say the liberals are ‘piling on’ a group that they are also painting as a victim in the headline almost certainly is trying to send a message. Similarly, the liberal MSNBC uses strategic wording in their article headlines designed to make Republicans look bad. One headline suggests that a Republican senator has ties to a major insurer (insurers are evil on this site). When one reads the article, the facts supporting this claim are severely lacking, but the headline is what most people see first and how many will form their opinion, especially those who choose not to read the whole article. Another article praises a man for treating any and all patients that come to him without any form of health insurance, but does not once mentions the repercussions of doing so or the burden that it could potentially cause tax payers.
But health reform is not the only issue where these two sites show their support along party lines. On the FOX News site there are two separate articles discussing gun rights and one touching on immigration reform. On MSNBC’s site, one can find articles about gay rights and global climate change. What these articles are really doing is outline the top issues for the parties that each of these infotainment sites ‘unofficially’ represent. Democrats like to push the agenda of global warming and gay rights while the Republicans, ever conscious of homeland security like to keep the second amendment front and center along with the issue of border patrol. This is where in America we see news networks doubling as political advertising. They build up their own sides’ positions on their favorite issues while doing their best to malign the other party’s, or dismiss them altogether, as is the case with many of these articles (they don’t even mention the other sides’ position in most of them).
But perhaps the most issue that was the most telling (and the most interesting) of the issues that revealed these two infotainment giants’ political alignment is their stances towards the ongoing military action in Iraq and Afghanistan. All-told, there were no less than five stories on each of the two sites’ front pages about the war on terror and military action across the Middle East. What I found interesting about this was the way that the two sites aligned themselves. FOX’s stories featured almost universal negativity when discussing the events going on overseas. Bleak headlines focused mainly on terror-related deaths and stories that seemed to be suspicious of the Obama administration’s plans to continue the same military actions that they condemned Republicans for in order to get elected last fall. Oppositely, MSNBC’s view painted a picture of an administration making careful decisions in the Middle East and having open minds to new ideas on how to handle the current military climate overseas. What I find interesting and ironic about the take on both sides is the obvious flip-flop from the staunch positions they had during the previous administration, where the liberal side of infotainment endorsed the notion of getting completely out of the Middle East as quickly as possible while the conservative side advocated staying as long as it took.
This kind of hypocrisy promotes the kind of partisanship that both Republicans and Democrats in office claim to be trying to transcend, yet neither party seems to be making much of an effort to distance themselves from these infotainment outlets. I’m sure their reasoning behind it is to allow these networks to attack their opponents for them, so as not to expose themselves to criticism for running negative ‘attack ads’ (Hollihan, 158). Furthermore these news media sources are doing more than ever to keep themselves connected to their respective parties. MSNBC uses phrases in their headlines and articles like ‘the administration’ and ‘the GOP’ while words like ‘Democrats’ or ‘liberals’ are rare to come up. The reason is that they are trying to act like they are on an informal basis with the Democratic Party and their language is geared to suggest that they are simply ‘one of them.’ FOX does the exact same thing, calling out the ‘Obama Administration’ and ‘Democrats’ while almost never mentioning ‘the GOP,’ ‘conservatives,’ or ‘Republicans.’
After all of this, it is easy to see how and why political news and political advertising are so intertwined. These news outlets are two of the biggest that the American public turn to for their information about politics, and yet even a simple glimpse around their websites reveal that they are little more than political advertisements for the key issues of the parties they support, in effect ‘priming’ voters into seeing in the news again and again what they think that the public should be voting on come election time (Hollihan, 120). The beauty of this form of political advertisement is that it can have the effect of bypassing Kathleen Hall Jamieson’s “news-room guide” for thinking critically about political ads, mostly because most people reading into these infotainment outlets don’t realize that they are advertisements (Hollihan, 165). One can only hope that the continued growth and access to technology will help Americans in the future to be able to differentiate between news and infotainment political advertising, and that in the future there will be more credible news sources that have as easy access as these two media giants.
Class Readings Without Provided Link Above
Hollihan, Thomas A. Uncivil Wars: Political Campaigns in a Media Age. 2nd ed. Bedford/St. Martin's, 2008. Print.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Dishonesty and Candidate Image
Those who know me well can attest to my disdain for political rhetoric, which I would argue is more of a form of sophistry in the absence of real knowledge of a subject than it is the useful tool for ‘informing’ the public that most politicians would claim it is. The easiest place to see this political chest-pounding is in political elections, where smooth words are supposed to make us ignore lack of experience, and war stories are supposed to help us ignore a lack of knowledge or innovation to inject into a national problem (either of these seem familiar?). But for lack of reliable and objective sources focusing on recent campaigns and elections, I have instead decided to focus this blog on the vague and deceptive language of candidate speechwriting and the harm that this kind of communication brings to the American people. I will explore several speeches, point out some very obvious problems with each speech’s wording, and speculate on the ramifications of this communication.
The first and most recent example that I could find of vagueness and deception in political speeches was President Obama’s address to the nation on health care. I will reference paragraphs of the speech (as they are divided in the text provided), the full text of which can be found here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/09/obama-health-care-speech_n_281265.html. Most specifically, in paragraphs 26 and 27 the president outlines his plan to require all individuals to have health insurance, pointing out that for anyone not to under his plan would be simply ‘irresponsible.’ What he fails to mention is that any person without insurance under this plan will be fined between $750 and $3800 depending on income levels (Individual Responsibility section of the framework), simply for not having insurance or buying into his public option (text of the framework of the bill available here: http://thehill.com/images/stories/news/2009/september/090809/baucus_health.pdf). This may not seem like a very big deal until you look at it from a situational aspect. Aside from the obvious dishonesty of this in the fact that Obama campaigned heavily on the stand that he would not make insurance mandatory, say for a second that a man loses his job, a job that gave him health benefits. If that man does not find a new job very quickly, he is either forced to pay an enormous fine for not having insurance, or buy into the public option, whether he wants to or not. Thus, this health care plan is designed to eventually kick more and more people into the public option, eventually giving it the majority that it needs to do away with private insurance altogether. Obama is careful to conceal this, as he knows that the American people would be opposed to the final goal of this plan, but he knows that very few people will catch his wording, and those that do and complain about it can easily be dismissed as ‘crazy pundits’ or ‘racists,’ if you ask Jimmy Carter. The result, in this case, could end up being a vote for a policy that if you didn’t take the time to read yourself (most people don’t have the time, heck most of Congress hasn’t read the whole thing), maybe you don’t believe in after all.
I don’t mean to just pick on President Obama either. If Republicans think that their political figures don’t participate in this type of political deception, they need to pay look more closely. I turn my attention now to a speech given by the previous president, George W. Bush, given September 24, 2008 addressing the nation’s economic crisis (Full Text: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/25/business/worldbusiness/25iht-24textbush.16463831.html). After his initial remarks, Bush is very quick to point out that these financial problems have been developing over a long period of time (paragraph 12). By paragraphs 15 through 18 he is now coming to what he feels is the crux of the problem in the housing market, lenders giving home loans to people who could not afford to pay them. The dishonesty here is very simple; the president of the United States is showing no responsibility for the problems of the country. He points out that these problems started a long time ago to make sure that people know that he was not responsible for how this crisis started. His comments in paragraphs 15-18 hint at where he places the blame, a bill passed by president Clinton during his administration, a bill that Bush feels led to lenders lending to people who they knew could not afford to pay them back (article outlining the bill found here: http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html?n=Top%2FReference%2FTimes%20Topics%2FSubjects%2FM%2FMinorities%20(US)). Whether or not these claims by Bush are true are irrelevant, the simple fact is that the man who had resided over the U.S. for most of eight years took no responsibility for the financial crisis that had the nation on the verge of economic depression. He instead blamed someone else, without naming them (so as not to sound to the American public that he was blaming someone else) and hid his lack of knowledge behind free-market rhetoric. On the second page of his speech (paragraph 6 on page 2), Bush states that his inactivity during this time of crisis can be attributed to his belief in “free enterprise.” Sounds to me like the reality of the situation was that Bush had no idea what to do to help the economy at that time. In this case, deception was more about candidate image than anything else, but the harm caused by this type of deception can lead to elections where the image of a candidate can be perceived unjustly as the image of the entire party, which is where public voice, “the ways citizens give expression to their views on public issues” (Zukin, 54).
Deception and careful wording can be found during the reign of the president before Mr. Bush as well, this time in a slightly different context. During President Clinton’s impeachment proceedings, his careful wording kept him from losing a perjury trial, and not even the lawyer who was interviewing him as a witness caught on to the deception. The first and most famous example of this was his notorious “I did not have sex with that woman!” line. The deception in this is obvious to anyone who has paid attention to the news; he never had intercourse with Monica Lewinsky, but they did engage in oral sex. Perhaps the lesser known of Clinton’s carefully-worded statements was his claim that he was never alone in the Oval Office Complex with Lewinsky, which was true. The problem was that the question that was asked of him was whether he had ever been alone in the Oval Office with her. The fact that he was never alone in the Oval Office Complex with her only means that the Secret Security Guards charged with guarding Clinton were doing their job and standing in the Oval Office Complex just outside the doors into the Oval Office. Once again, candidate image was the main reason for this deception, and the trust of the American people was influenced greatly by the truth that came out later in the Clinton scandal, and the trust that was lost may very well have cost Al Gore and the Democrats the election of 2000. This is an example of the phenomena of the ‘Post-Watergate Era,’ where media scrutiny on candidates’ character forces candidates to go along with certain social norms and values that appease the general public (Hollihan, Ch. 11).
The purpose I have in writing this blog goes back to the lyrics of the old The Who song “Won’t Get Fooled Again,” ‘meet the new boss, same as the old boss.’ There are countless more examples of political dishonesty in the U.S. from aldermen to senators to the president himself. Almost every politician in the U.S. today is inherently dishonest, and if you think some new guy coming in is any different, you are just fooling yourself. Honesty is identified by many researchers as an important characteristic that voters take into consideration when deciding which candidate to vote for (Hollihan, Ch. 4). The problem is that not enough people are identifying this dishonesty. By studying the words of candidates’ speeches and responses to questioning, you can often suspicious rhetoric, and it is then more than ever that you must do your research, study a candidate’s record, and decide for yourself whether, if elected, this person’s promises will hold up, or if past actions speak louder.
Readings from Class without Provided Links
Hollihan, Thomas A. Uncivil Wars: Political Campaigns in a Media Age. 2nd ed. Bedford/St. Martin's, 2008. Print.
Zukin, Cliff. A New Engagement: Political Participation, Civic Life, and the Changing American Citizen. New York: Oxford UP, 2006. Print.
The first and most recent example that I could find of vagueness and deception in political speeches was President Obama’s address to the nation on health care. I will reference paragraphs of the speech (as they are divided in the text provided), the full text of which can be found here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/09/obama-health-care-speech_n_281265.html. Most specifically, in paragraphs 26 and 27 the president outlines his plan to require all individuals to have health insurance, pointing out that for anyone not to under his plan would be simply ‘irresponsible.’ What he fails to mention is that any person without insurance under this plan will be fined between $750 and $3800 depending on income levels (Individual Responsibility section of the framework), simply for not having insurance or buying into his public option (text of the framework of the bill available here: http://thehill.com/images/stories/news/2009/september/090809/baucus_health.pdf). This may not seem like a very big deal until you look at it from a situational aspect. Aside from the obvious dishonesty of this in the fact that Obama campaigned heavily on the stand that he would not make insurance mandatory, say for a second that a man loses his job, a job that gave him health benefits. If that man does not find a new job very quickly, he is either forced to pay an enormous fine for not having insurance, or buy into the public option, whether he wants to or not. Thus, this health care plan is designed to eventually kick more and more people into the public option, eventually giving it the majority that it needs to do away with private insurance altogether. Obama is careful to conceal this, as he knows that the American people would be opposed to the final goal of this plan, but he knows that very few people will catch his wording, and those that do and complain about it can easily be dismissed as ‘crazy pundits’ or ‘racists,’ if you ask Jimmy Carter. The result, in this case, could end up being a vote for a policy that if you didn’t take the time to read yourself (most people don’t have the time, heck most of Congress hasn’t read the whole thing), maybe you don’t believe in after all.
I don’t mean to just pick on President Obama either. If Republicans think that their political figures don’t participate in this type of political deception, they need to pay look more closely. I turn my attention now to a speech given by the previous president, George W. Bush, given September 24, 2008 addressing the nation’s economic crisis (Full Text: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/25/business/worldbusiness/25iht-24textbush.16463831.html). After his initial remarks, Bush is very quick to point out that these financial problems have been developing over a long period of time (paragraph 12). By paragraphs 15 through 18 he is now coming to what he feels is the crux of the problem in the housing market, lenders giving home loans to people who could not afford to pay them. The dishonesty here is very simple; the president of the United States is showing no responsibility for the problems of the country. He points out that these problems started a long time ago to make sure that people know that he was not responsible for how this crisis started. His comments in paragraphs 15-18 hint at where he places the blame, a bill passed by president Clinton during his administration, a bill that Bush feels led to lenders lending to people who they knew could not afford to pay them back (article outlining the bill found here: http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html?n=Top%2FReference%2FTimes%20Topics%2FSubjects%2FM%2FMinorities%20(US)). Whether or not these claims by Bush are true are irrelevant, the simple fact is that the man who had resided over the U.S. for most of eight years took no responsibility for the financial crisis that had the nation on the verge of economic depression. He instead blamed someone else, without naming them (so as not to sound to the American public that he was blaming someone else) and hid his lack of knowledge behind free-market rhetoric. On the second page of his speech (paragraph 6 on page 2), Bush states that his inactivity during this time of crisis can be attributed to his belief in “free enterprise.” Sounds to me like the reality of the situation was that Bush had no idea what to do to help the economy at that time. In this case, deception was more about candidate image than anything else, but the harm caused by this type of deception can lead to elections where the image of a candidate can be perceived unjustly as the image of the entire party, which is where public voice, “the ways citizens give expression to their views on public issues” (Zukin, 54).
Deception and careful wording can be found during the reign of the president before Mr. Bush as well, this time in a slightly different context. During President Clinton’s impeachment proceedings, his careful wording kept him from losing a perjury trial, and not even the lawyer who was interviewing him as a witness caught on to the deception. The first and most famous example of this was his notorious “I did not have sex with that woman!” line. The deception in this is obvious to anyone who has paid attention to the news; he never had intercourse with Monica Lewinsky, but they did engage in oral sex. Perhaps the lesser known of Clinton’s carefully-worded statements was his claim that he was never alone in the Oval Office Complex with Lewinsky, which was true. The problem was that the question that was asked of him was whether he had ever been alone in the Oval Office with her. The fact that he was never alone in the Oval Office Complex with her only means that the Secret Security Guards charged with guarding Clinton were doing their job and standing in the Oval Office Complex just outside the doors into the Oval Office. Once again, candidate image was the main reason for this deception, and the trust of the American people was influenced greatly by the truth that came out later in the Clinton scandal, and the trust that was lost may very well have cost Al Gore and the Democrats the election of 2000. This is an example of the phenomena of the ‘Post-Watergate Era,’ where media scrutiny on candidates’ character forces candidates to go along with certain social norms and values that appease the general public (Hollihan, Ch. 11).
The purpose I have in writing this blog goes back to the lyrics of the old The Who song “Won’t Get Fooled Again,” ‘meet the new boss, same as the old boss.’ There are countless more examples of political dishonesty in the U.S. from aldermen to senators to the president himself. Almost every politician in the U.S. today is inherently dishonest, and if you think some new guy coming in is any different, you are just fooling yourself. Honesty is identified by many researchers as an important characteristic that voters take into consideration when deciding which candidate to vote for (Hollihan, Ch. 4). The problem is that not enough people are identifying this dishonesty. By studying the words of candidates’ speeches and responses to questioning, you can often suspicious rhetoric, and it is then more than ever that you must do your research, study a candidate’s record, and decide for yourself whether, if elected, this person’s promises will hold up, or if past actions speak louder.
Readings from Class without Provided Links
Hollihan, Thomas A. Uncivil Wars: Political Campaigns in a Media Age. 2nd ed. Bedford/St. Martin's, 2008. Print.
Zukin, Cliff. A New Engagement: Political Participation, Civic Life, and the Changing American Citizen. New York: Oxford UP, 2006. Print.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
The Rhetoric of the American Libertarian Party
As someone who identifies himself as a Libertarian-leaning Republican, I pride myself on knowing what both of the parties mentioned in my affiliation stand for. As the Republican point of view is usually easier to locate in terms of where they stand on any given issue, I will focus mainly on the Libertarian point of view, where they stand, on how they wish to portray themselves to the common person and in the media.
Personally, I have always thought of the libertarian view as something that can be simply stated as their old slogan; “Freedom of Choice on Everything.” Libertarians favor limited government in every aspect of life, from business to the personal lives of American citizens. But it then occurred to me that I had never read much literature on the party, nor listened much to the candidates that they have put up for office. The one time I listened to Bob Barr speak, I couldn’t take him seriously by virtue of the fact that he continued to insist to his interviewer that he had a legitimate chance at winning the presidency (we all know that third parties have no chance at winning the presidency, the purpose they hold is more a function of giving people who are frustrated with the current establishment a chance to throw their lot in with someone they feel better represents their views, all I ask from these candidates is that they grasp this reality). So with this in mind I set out to learn something more official about a party that I feel may be more representative of the typical American voter than the voter even realizes, and I figured the best way to go about this quest was to begin at the party’s official website at www.lp.org.
What I found mostly confirmed what I already knew, but what I found interesting was the extremes that the website went to in order to drive home their point of small government and freedom for all in all aspects of life. In speaking of government’s role in society, they are very clear that the only role of government is ‘help individuals defend themselves from force and fraud,’ a very minimalist approach to be sure. Oppositely, they expressly state that the government should stay out of economics, arguing that ‘peaceful, honest people (should be able to) offer their goods and services to willing consumers without a hassle from government.’ When they speak of rights that should be reserved to the people of the United States, they really push the ‘freedom of choice on everything’ factor, even going so far as to mention topics like freedom to medicate oneself however they see fit, and to smoke and make love however they wish. Certainly values the party has always represented, but the inclusion of such subjects in the party’s official website is something I doubt you would see in either of the two major parties. I think the point of this is to emphasize the vast differences that the Libertarian Party holds from both Democrats and Republicans. It seems every four years we see Ralph Nader running for the Green Party citing that he feels that both major parties are too similar on too many issues, so this is probably a staple of third party politics in the United States. This is not the only place where the Libertarian Party’s website shows their adversity to partisan politics either.
I have always identified Libertarian voters to be aligned more with the Republican side of politics than the Democrats, and this may be partially because I think of Libertarianism as the old Republican way of thinking, but also because Libertarians like Ron Paul have sometimes thrown their hat into the mix of Republican presidential candidates. I may even have thought this because I personally have always seen economic issues as being of greater importance than social ones, and that is where Libertarians and Republicans have always had a common ground. Whatever my reasoning for this has been in the past, I’m afraid that now I will have to change my thinking. The website really emphasizes its differences with both parties as much as possible, and in particular takes some extra shots at Republican congress members and their ideas of big government, usually a concept that the common voter would think that Democrats have cornered. Their daily poll noted that plenty of past Republicans had also tried to pass ‘big government’ health care bills and called it hypocritical of them to be criticizing Obama for his own government system proposal. Similarly, an article on the homepage for the site takes special care to mention that although they are opposed to Obama’s bill for a larger government role in the health care industry, they also oppose Republican plans for government health care that have been put into place over recent years. This seems a bit odd, going out of their way to take shots at Republicans for ideas of times long past that clearly are not relevant in today’s political discussion, but it could possibly mean that I was not alone in believing that Libertarians leaned more towards the Republican side of politics. If too many Americans held this way of thinking towards the Libertarian Party it is possible that these shots were meant to help avoid a conflict for the party of being accused of being too close to the Republican Party on too many issues, a fault that Libertarians and Green Party members accuse the two major parties falling into, and a problem that the aforementioned Ralph Nader runs into when running for president (although in his case he accused of being too close to the Democrats on too many issues).
The final interesting choice of communication that I found on the Libertarian Party’s website was their use of the phrase ‘America’s third-largest party.’ They make a point to use this phrase almost religiously, and the phrase can be spotted on most every page on the site. Additionally, every article on the home page and in the news section has the phrase within the first sentence or two. I would guess that the aim of this is twofold. First, like every political party the Libertarians are trying to gain leverage and popularity in order to gain influence on major issues and to get members of their party elected to office. By identifying themselves as America’s third-largest party they can hope to push out smaller third parties and attract more attention that may otherwise go to these smaller entities. The second and probably more important reason for this self-identification is to remind Americans that they do have another choice besides the two major parties. They want it to sound like Bob Barr was not completely full of it when he said he thought he had a legitimate shot at winning the 2008 election, and more than save face there, they want that kind of talk to be a reality in the future for the party.
The official website of the Libertarian Party showed quite a bit of interesting communications pieces which told me a lot about the message of the party, and even more about how they want to be perceived in American politics and society. In the end, they are a party with new ideas that come with extreme division from traditional political party norms, even to the point where one might question if their commitment to small government might hurt their cause (the idea of health care with no government regulation whatsoever is something that I think the American people would have a hard time believing would work, it even makes me raise an eyebrow). Still, extreme ideas may be what are needed to reshape the political landscape into something that will work better for the people of the United States. I am happy for the opportunity given to me to discover a different way of thinking that I can incorporate features of into my own political ideology and I think that we would all be well-served to investigate many of the third parties that lie off the beaten path in order to get a better perspective on the different sides of the many issues that we face in American society, and perhaps as a result become better educated voters.
Personally, I have always thought of the libertarian view as something that can be simply stated as their old slogan; “Freedom of Choice on Everything.” Libertarians favor limited government in every aspect of life, from business to the personal lives of American citizens. But it then occurred to me that I had never read much literature on the party, nor listened much to the candidates that they have put up for office. The one time I listened to Bob Barr speak, I couldn’t take him seriously by virtue of the fact that he continued to insist to his interviewer that he had a legitimate chance at winning the presidency (we all know that third parties have no chance at winning the presidency, the purpose they hold is more a function of giving people who are frustrated with the current establishment a chance to throw their lot in with someone they feel better represents their views, all I ask from these candidates is that they grasp this reality). So with this in mind I set out to learn something more official about a party that I feel may be more representative of the typical American voter than the voter even realizes, and I figured the best way to go about this quest was to begin at the party’s official website at www.lp.org.
What I found mostly confirmed what I already knew, but what I found interesting was the extremes that the website went to in order to drive home their point of small government and freedom for all in all aspects of life. In speaking of government’s role in society, they are very clear that the only role of government is ‘help individuals defend themselves from force and fraud,’ a very minimalist approach to be sure. Oppositely, they expressly state that the government should stay out of economics, arguing that ‘peaceful, honest people (should be able to) offer their goods and services to willing consumers without a hassle from government.’ When they speak of rights that should be reserved to the people of the United States, they really push the ‘freedom of choice on everything’ factor, even going so far as to mention topics like freedom to medicate oneself however they see fit, and to smoke and make love however they wish. Certainly values the party has always represented, but the inclusion of such subjects in the party’s official website is something I doubt you would see in either of the two major parties. I think the point of this is to emphasize the vast differences that the Libertarian Party holds from both Democrats and Republicans. It seems every four years we see Ralph Nader running for the Green Party citing that he feels that both major parties are too similar on too many issues, so this is probably a staple of third party politics in the United States. This is not the only place where the Libertarian Party’s website shows their adversity to partisan politics either.
I have always identified Libertarian voters to be aligned more with the Republican side of politics than the Democrats, and this may be partially because I think of Libertarianism as the old Republican way of thinking, but also because Libertarians like Ron Paul have sometimes thrown their hat into the mix of Republican presidential candidates. I may even have thought this because I personally have always seen economic issues as being of greater importance than social ones, and that is where Libertarians and Republicans have always had a common ground. Whatever my reasoning for this has been in the past, I’m afraid that now I will have to change my thinking. The website really emphasizes its differences with both parties as much as possible, and in particular takes some extra shots at Republican congress members and their ideas of big government, usually a concept that the common voter would think that Democrats have cornered. Their daily poll noted that plenty of past Republicans had also tried to pass ‘big government’ health care bills and called it hypocritical of them to be criticizing Obama for his own government system proposal. Similarly, an article on the homepage for the site takes special care to mention that although they are opposed to Obama’s bill for a larger government role in the health care industry, they also oppose Republican plans for government health care that have been put into place over recent years. This seems a bit odd, going out of their way to take shots at Republicans for ideas of times long past that clearly are not relevant in today’s political discussion, but it could possibly mean that I was not alone in believing that Libertarians leaned more towards the Republican side of politics. If too many Americans held this way of thinking towards the Libertarian Party it is possible that these shots were meant to help avoid a conflict for the party of being accused of being too close to the Republican Party on too many issues, a fault that Libertarians and Green Party members accuse the two major parties falling into, and a problem that the aforementioned Ralph Nader runs into when running for president (although in his case he accused of being too close to the Democrats on too many issues).
The final interesting choice of communication that I found on the Libertarian Party’s website was their use of the phrase ‘America’s third-largest party.’ They make a point to use this phrase almost religiously, and the phrase can be spotted on most every page on the site. Additionally, every article on the home page and in the news section has the phrase within the first sentence or two. I would guess that the aim of this is twofold. First, like every political party the Libertarians are trying to gain leverage and popularity in order to gain influence on major issues and to get members of their party elected to office. By identifying themselves as America’s third-largest party they can hope to push out smaller third parties and attract more attention that may otherwise go to these smaller entities. The second and probably more important reason for this self-identification is to remind Americans that they do have another choice besides the two major parties. They want it to sound like Bob Barr was not completely full of it when he said he thought he had a legitimate shot at winning the 2008 election, and more than save face there, they want that kind of talk to be a reality in the future for the party.
The official website of the Libertarian Party showed quite a bit of interesting communications pieces which told me a lot about the message of the party, and even more about how they want to be perceived in American politics and society. In the end, they are a party with new ideas that come with extreme division from traditional political party norms, even to the point where one might question if their commitment to small government might hurt their cause (the idea of health care with no government regulation whatsoever is something that I think the American people would have a hard time believing would work, it even makes me raise an eyebrow). Still, extreme ideas may be what are needed to reshape the political landscape into something that will work better for the people of the United States. I am happy for the opportunity given to me to discover a different way of thinking that I can incorporate features of into my own political ideology and I think that we would all be well-served to investigate many of the third parties that lie off the beaten path in order to get a better perspective on the different sides of the many issues that we face in American society, and perhaps as a result become better educated voters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)