Improving the Landscape of Political Communication Through Education

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.