We recently learned about the effect that media personalities such as Jon Stewart can potentially have on legislation. The nature of such influence is understandably indirect. Stewart is hardly a politician, and his audience is primarily composed of people who already have a tendency to agree with his views. His influence is felt through such mediums as the internet and main stream media, which in turn have an effect on public awareness and politicians. Putting aside the debate over whether or not professionals in the "entertainment journalism" industry have such an effect, one might wonder whether such an effect is a good or bad thing.
Granted, in the case we discussed Stewart's efforts seem noble and he did get positive results. However, that may not always be. What if Stewart or another "journalist" like him supports an issue or legislation that is to the detriment of the American government or people? After all, the industry is most likely not based on objectivity and non-partisanship. One day, such "journalists" might let their partisanship get the better of them, or perhaps they might be misguided and cause the people and politicians to make a mistake.
Entertainment journalism is indeed entertainment. It is entertaining. But, when members of the field use their position to influence the people and government, it probably won't end well. Then again, if their influence is as intangible and irrelevent as some suggest, this isn't an issue at all. I would suggest that viewers observe the industry and keep tabs on the extent and variety of such influence.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Polarization?
We have recently discussed in class the phenomenon of polarization. The perceived polarization of American politics and media is not only an important topic for our class, but for anyone who is even slightly interested in recent political events. The recent possibility of a government shutdown is particularly illustrative of the type of politics that would seem to suggest that American politics are increasingly polarized. However, most studies and research has shown that polarization, despite what almost all of us might think, does not exist.
I personally believe at times that there is significant polarization in this country. However, there is no evidence to support such a belief. Despite what some, such as Abramovitz, might say, the majority opinion is that polarization does not exist, and that even if it does it is confined to a minority segment of the population. As Fiorina put it in conjunction with the "median voter theorem", the majority of the population is in the middle and only a few extremists are polarized. This accounts for the tendency of politicians (particularly presidential candidates) to be more to the right or left during primaries and to move toward the center during general elections. Also supporting this theory are studies which suggest that most people's ideologies are influenced by people whose opinion they trust and absorb, called cue givers, who may be influenced by (if not members of) the elite or extremist segments of the population, and they are the kinds of people who are becoming more polarized.
Whether you believe that polarization exists or not, or if it is a significant problem or not, you may have observed the rising trend among politicians and the media in recent years to be increasingly contemptuous toward their opponents, particularly after certain events that they believe support the truth of their own ideology. Whether politicians and the American people are polarized or not, there definitely seems to be more animosity between the two major political parties, and less enthusiasm for bipartisan endeavors. This goes to show that extremism is not limited to our enemies abroad. However, while I do not like such fanaticism, from what we have learned it seems that such elements are necessary in order to maintain a balance and to ensure decisive action by whomever is in charge. As with many topics discussed this semester, polarization (if it exists) seems to be a necessary evil (much like Facebook, the media, and the internet in general).
I personally believe at times that there is significant polarization in this country. However, there is no evidence to support such a belief. Despite what some, such as Abramovitz, might say, the majority opinion is that polarization does not exist, and that even if it does it is confined to a minority segment of the population. As Fiorina put it in conjunction with the "median voter theorem", the majority of the population is in the middle and only a few extremists are polarized. This accounts for the tendency of politicians (particularly presidential candidates) to be more to the right or left during primaries and to move toward the center during general elections. Also supporting this theory are studies which suggest that most people's ideologies are influenced by people whose opinion they trust and absorb, called cue givers, who may be influenced by (if not members of) the elite or extremist segments of the population, and they are the kinds of people who are becoming more polarized.
Whether you believe that polarization exists or not, or if it is a significant problem or not, you may have observed the rising trend among politicians and the media in recent years to be increasingly contemptuous toward their opponents, particularly after certain events that they believe support the truth of their own ideology. Whether politicians and the American people are polarized or not, there definitely seems to be more animosity between the two major political parties, and less enthusiasm for bipartisan endeavors. This goes to show that extremism is not limited to our enemies abroad. However, while I do not like such fanaticism, from what we have learned it seems that such elements are necessary in order to maintain a balance and to ensure decisive action by whomever is in charge. As with many topics discussed this semester, polarization (if it exists) seems to be a necessary evil (much like Facebook, the media, and the internet in general).
Saturday, April 2, 2011
A New Age (Again)?
Our recent readings have been primarily about the revolutionary innovations in information technology and how they have affected presidential campaigns. This "revolution" was evident during the in-class group project about candidate strategies and overall campaigns. Every group had numerous ideas about how their candidate could most effectively utilize recent technological developments such as online social networking, blogging, and video posting/chatting sites. There were far fewer options proposed on how to best incorporate older campaign methods such as mass-mailings, door-to-door campaigning, along with radio and tv (even newspaper) commercials. Some of these older methods were not even mentioned. It's probably safe to say that we are indeed entering a new age, as Samuel Greengard's article mentioned, though I don't believe that this is such a surprising, or even original, transformation.
The creation of the radio and then its' widespread distribution during the early 20th century among the American populace produced a similar impact on American politics. Franklin Delano Roosevelt's "Fireside Chats" during his years as president can be seen as just as revolutionary as Barack Obama's effective use of the internet during his 2008 campaign. Roosevelt's radio addresses to the nation during the 1930s and 1940s were an unprecedented political tactic. Never before had a politician been able to interact with the American people on such a personal and far-reaching level. His inspired use of what was then the latest technological innovation to be available on a national and multi-class level contributed to his popularity and support among the people. So too, Barack Obama's creative use of the internet contributed to his widespread popularity (particularly among younger generations).
Greengard's article mentions that a previous candidate during the 2004 election had also used the internet as part of his campaign strategy. Greengard implies that Barack Obama took what this previous candidate had done through the internet and took it to the next level for the first time in the political arena. I am in no way attempting to downplay Greengard's (probably true) description of Obama's innovative use of the internet by mentioning Roosevelt and his fireside chats. What I am proposing is that such "revolutions" are a natural by-product of technological innovations, that savvy politicians who keep track of such developments are more likely to win elections, and that such information revolutions will likely occur in ever increasing intervals in the future.
The creation of the radio and then its' widespread distribution during the early 20th century among the American populace produced a similar impact on American politics. Franklin Delano Roosevelt's "Fireside Chats" during his years as president can be seen as just as revolutionary as Barack Obama's effective use of the internet during his 2008 campaign. Roosevelt's radio addresses to the nation during the 1930s and 1940s were an unprecedented political tactic. Never before had a politician been able to interact with the American people on such a personal and far-reaching level. His inspired use of what was then the latest technological innovation to be available on a national and multi-class level contributed to his popularity and support among the people. So too, Barack Obama's creative use of the internet contributed to his widespread popularity (particularly among younger generations).
Greengard's article mentions that a previous candidate during the 2004 election had also used the internet as part of his campaign strategy. Greengard implies that Barack Obama took what this previous candidate had done through the internet and took it to the next level for the first time in the political arena. I am in no way attempting to downplay Greengard's (probably true) description of Obama's innovative use of the internet by mentioning Roosevelt and his fireside chats. What I am proposing is that such "revolutions" are a natural by-product of technological innovations, that savvy politicians who keep track of such developments are more likely to win elections, and that such information revolutions will likely occur in ever increasing intervals in the future.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Political Advertising: The Pros And Cons
This past week we spent a considerable amount of time discussing political advertising campaigns, and even had the pleasure of watching a considerable number of presidential campaign ads in class. We learned about negative ads and content free ads, among others. Since then I've been wondering, why do we bother to watch them? Before anyone who reads this starts criticizing me (perhaps as a result of the reflexive emotional response such a strong statement is capable of eliciting, the type of reaction political ads tend seek), I will admit that campaign ads do have legitimate purposes. However, after our recent lectures and readings on the subject I don't believe that those purposes are beneficial to the viewer (theoretically the average American).
Political ads are usually intended to spread publicity about a specific candidate, policy, issue, or party and/or to swing public opinion in favor of said candidate, policy, issue, or party. This objective is usually of no help to the viewer. For example, what do ads showing candidates kissing babies, standing with the American flag, shaking hands, and so forth truly reveal about that candidate? Since the first campaign ads were introduced they have informed the viewer about very few facts, instead publicizing the candidate's name and describing (what some would say are) irrelevant moral and familial values. Negative ads do tend to provide more information, though they are equally as harmful.
Negative ads have the potential to spread not only harmful, but false information as well, leaving the viewer misinformed and voting for the wrong reasons. On the other hand, content free ads are next to useless in their lack of relevant information. I suppose what I'm asking is: What's the point? Personally, I don't pay too much attention to political advertisements. When I do, I often review what the ad said or was about and question its' honesty. Maybe I'm over thinking this, but I believe that we should try to analyze what ads don't say and question what they do.
Political ads are usually intended to spread publicity about a specific candidate, policy, issue, or party and/or to swing public opinion in favor of said candidate, policy, issue, or party. This objective is usually of no help to the viewer. For example, what do ads showing candidates kissing babies, standing with the American flag, shaking hands, and so forth truly reveal about that candidate? Since the first campaign ads were introduced they have informed the viewer about very few facts, instead publicizing the candidate's name and describing (what some would say are) irrelevant moral and familial values. Negative ads do tend to provide more information, though they are equally as harmful.
Negative ads have the potential to spread not only harmful, but false information as well, leaving the viewer misinformed and voting for the wrong reasons. On the other hand, content free ads are next to useless in their lack of relevant information. I suppose what I'm asking is: What's the point? Personally, I don't pay too much attention to political advertisements. When I do, I often review what the ad said or was about and question its' honesty. Maybe I'm over thinking this, but I believe that we should try to analyze what ads don't say and question what they do.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Media Bias?
We recently discussed media bias in class. In particular we discussed the Grosclose & Milyo article and what they observed about media bias. In their article they looked at scores given to Congress members by the ADA. The scores were also based on which sources (or rather think tanks) the congressional representatives used. They basically concluded that bias equals preference, and that there is a (mostly) liberal preference in the media.
There is an article by William Eveland and Dhavan Shah which also analyzes the existence of media bias. Within their article they include statistics, experiments, and meta-analyses on the subject. They come to slightly different conclusions that Grosclose & Milyo. Eveland and Shah essentially conclude that bias does exist, though to a minimal extent, and that it is the result of many factors, from social communications networks to ideological inclinations. However, they believe that there is actually a conservative bias in the media.
What I think we can all draw from this is that in a way, both articles are right. While a significant amount of media bias may be an exaggeration of the situation, there is indisputably a slight amount. This minimal bias is quite possible the result of preference (also known as ideological inclination) on the part of the individual as well as members of his/her social communications network.
Solutions such as the nationalization of the media or the establishment of a government run media outlet is extreme and not viable. Until the day that everyone realizes that they should try to be more partial and objective, I think that at least a minimal level of bias should be expected by viewers/consumers who should compensate for it.
There is an article by William Eveland and Dhavan Shah which also analyzes the existence of media bias. Within their article they include statistics, experiments, and meta-analyses on the subject. They come to slightly different conclusions that Grosclose & Milyo. Eveland and Shah essentially conclude that bias does exist, though to a minimal extent, and that it is the result of many factors, from social communications networks to ideological inclinations. However, they believe that there is actually a conservative bias in the media.
What I think we can all draw from this is that in a way, both articles are right. While a significant amount of media bias may be an exaggeration of the situation, there is indisputably a slight amount. This minimal bias is quite possible the result of preference (also known as ideological inclination) on the part of the individual as well as members of his/her social communications network.
Solutions such as the nationalization of the media or the establishment of a government run media outlet is extreme and not viable. Until the day that everyone realizes that they should try to be more partial and objective, I think that at least a minimal level of bias should be expected by viewers/consumers who should compensate for it.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
PR Strategy
This week we discussed in class the Obama healthcare plan, compared it to the Clinton plan, and attempted to determine why the Obama plan worked and the Clinton plan did not. Many plausible reasons were suggested as to why Obama was able to get his plan passed and Clinton wasn't. Suggestions included differences between the two plans: Clinton's was intended for all Americans versus Obama's being intended for uninsured Americans, and Clinton's having significantly more effects on the insurance companies as a whole than Obama's, among other differences. Another aspect to the comparison that was one of the primary topics during the lecture was the Republican Party's strategy during both health care plan events.
The strategy used by Republicans during the Clinton health care plan situation was suggested by Republican strategist Frank Luntz. Luntz's advice called for Republicans to denounce the Clinton health care plan for the overbroad expansion of bureaucracy it would necessitate and its' growth of "big government". The chart showing in graphic terms this governmental expansion through committees and other means was used effectively by Republicans to prevent the Clinton plan from even coming up for a vote. Unfortunately for Republicans, similar tactics were of no use in preventing the passing of the Obama health care plan. We came up with many reasons in class, but I have considered a few other explanations.
The Republicans once again tried to deride the proposed health care plan for being a step toward big government. However, this time they went a step further and labeled the plan "socialist" and claimed that it would create "death panels". I suggest that one of the reasons that this strategy didn't work a second time is that it came across as being somewhat ridiculous, particularly the use of the term "death panels", which was an obvious exaggeration. It is my opinion that the use of such inflammatory vocabulary was unnecessary, and alienated many who therefore saw the attack on the plan as blatantly partisan and elitist in nature. Sarah Palin's involvement in the debate certainly didn't help, and might have reinforced the perception that the Republican attack was ridiculous and incorrect. I further suggest that the Republican strategy didn't work the second time because the American people and legislators were fed up with the previous policy and were willing to try something new, perhaps a sign of a short attention span amongst Americans when it comes to politics.
The strategy used by Republicans during the Clinton health care plan situation was suggested by Republican strategist Frank Luntz. Luntz's advice called for Republicans to denounce the Clinton health care plan for the overbroad expansion of bureaucracy it would necessitate and its' growth of "big government". The chart showing in graphic terms this governmental expansion through committees and other means was used effectively by Republicans to prevent the Clinton plan from even coming up for a vote. Unfortunately for Republicans, similar tactics were of no use in preventing the passing of the Obama health care plan. We came up with many reasons in class, but I have considered a few other explanations.
The Republicans once again tried to deride the proposed health care plan for being a step toward big government. However, this time they went a step further and labeled the plan "socialist" and claimed that it would create "death panels". I suggest that one of the reasons that this strategy didn't work a second time is that it came across as being somewhat ridiculous, particularly the use of the term "death panels", which was an obvious exaggeration. It is my opinion that the use of such inflammatory vocabulary was unnecessary, and alienated many who therefore saw the attack on the plan as blatantly partisan and elitist in nature. Sarah Palin's involvement in the debate certainly didn't help, and might have reinforced the perception that the Republican attack was ridiculous and incorrect. I further suggest that the Republican strategy didn't work the second time because the American people and legislators were fed up with the previous policy and were willing to try something new, perhaps a sign of a short attention span amongst Americans when it comes to politics.
Friday, March 4, 2011
The Clinton-Lewinsky Scandal & Other Political Gossip
By now I realize the truth to the principle that "It's all about the cover-up". Many polticians involved in scandals wouldn't be news-worthy if they hadn't tried to cover up their actions, since many of those actions involve minimal (if any) possibility of criminal charges. Had Clinton not tried to cover up his affair, if he hadn't stated publicly that "I did not have sex with that woman", and if he hadn't tried to discourage Lewinsky and others from revealing the truth then it's very likely that the media coverage of that story wouldn't have lasted nearly as long as it did, and Clinton wouldn't have been in as much trouble toward the end of his final term. It seems to me as though politicians should realize that if they simply acknowledge what they did, apologize, and get on with their careers, then they have a chance of avoiding bad press and significant consequences. This conclusion is based on the growing trend over the last couple of decades among the media to report (perhaps over-report) scandals and similar political gossip much in the same manner that they report on celebrities. Take for example the recent Charlie Sheen situation. It began about a week or two ago, and it's only now starting to regress from front-page news status. The John Edwards scandal was in the headlines for at least that length of time. What has the media become, where scandals and similar stories receive more attention than news that's actually important such as, I don't know, maybe the collapse of Middle-Eastern governments? Rising food and fuel prices? Actual governmental business and legislation?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)