Thursday, December 10, 2009
Thursday, November 19, 2009
The Ultimate Political Battle: Political Rhetoric, or Political Stances?
Over time, the most ambitious, charismatic speakers have continued to win elections. This charisma is almost contagious, and the American people tend to believe and feel connections with those that can move them with their speech, or rhetorically. Yes, the issues matter in every election, but do the people really believe in them or are they just electing someone based on their magnetism and powers of persuasion? The answer is the latter, unfortunately, this is a climbing trend and will not be stopped until people take the time to read up on issues, look at records, and involve themselves more thoroughly politically. This blog will examine elections that prove that the more charismatic leader is the one that is elected into presidency.
The first example is Bill Clinton. He was very charismatic, comfortable under all spot light circumstances, and young at heart. Paul Graham, a famous essayist, author, and “was” Republican said this about his vote during the presidential election of 1993, “But when I think about why I voted for Clinton over the first George Bush, it wasn't because I was shifting to the left. Clinton just seemed more dynamic. He seemed to want the job more. Bush seemed old and tired. I suspect it was the same for a lot of voters” (Graham 2006). He didn’t base this vote off of the issues, but off of the personality. People believe in someone who is more energetic. They believe, even if they just use their upbeat personality to prove it, that they will be a better more engaged president.
This is proven later when in 2004, Gore who is seemingly dry and uninteresting ran for the presidency against George W. Bush and had almost identical policies as Bill Clinton, but without the charisma that Clinton portrayed. Because of this lack of charisma, he lost to George W. Bush and will probably never be considered for the office again. At the time, George W. Bush seemed more charismatic, and the people wanted to believe in him because of it. This may not have been the sole cause of the win, but the overwhelming confidence in Bush definitely played a role in his triumph over Gore.
Four years later, it is again the case. When Bush ran against Kerry, it was pretty much a known fact that Kerry was smarter, and more articulate than Bush. He was a lawyer, debating was his strong suit, but he never quite had the edge over the confidence and charisma of George W. Bush. Kerry was seen as a stiff, especially after the political debates, where he held a very condescending attitude towards the man that had held the office for the last four years. People wanted to see Bush succeed after all that had happened, including 9/11 and the recent engagement of the war in Iraq, because of his attitude and confidence about the matter. Because Kerry was so condescending and “stiff”, he lost the race.
Now I am going all the way back to the 1960 presidential debates, between Kennedy and Nixon. These were the first ever televised presidential debates. Although television was quite new at this time, many people still had one. Those who were listening on the radio though that the debate was about a tie. Those watching the debate on television thought that Kennedy won. Unfortunately, many people watched this on TV and drew their own conclusions, based on the charismatic looks of Kennedy, without even knowing. He was younger, wore make up for television, and seemed more energetic by the looks of him. Nixon, on the other hand, had just recovered from illness, refused to wear make up for television, and looked significantly older. This ended up really hurting him, because he didn’t look to be as energetic and capable as Kennedy. John F. Kennedy ended up winning the election, of course, and it could have been because of his outstanding charisma.
Although I think it is ridiculous that one could base their presidential vote off of charisma, it happens. Many people think that politics are dry and boring. They do not want to be involved and think that they are not going to make a difference either way. When a charismatic man is running for office, people start to want to involve themselves. They want this person to succeed because this candidate is actually helping them want to be involved in politics. They are interested in their actions, because they are an actual fan of this person. If I were not interested in politics, whatsoever, but I knew about the current state of the economy and I didn’t have adequate health care of course I would have voted for Obama. He was engaging, charismatic, friendly, and seemed like an everyday man.
Speaking of Obama, this is the best example of charisma winning the presidency. Many people perceived him as ready to take office, without him even finishing one term in the Senate, because of his rhetorical abilities. Talk show hosts wanted to have him on their shows, venues wanted to host his speeches, everyone wanted to associate themselves with President Obama during the election because whether or not they supported him, he was a fascinating speaker. He engaged so many people that would not have normally been interested. If someone were to (and MANY people have) sit down and look at his record and education next to John McCain, John McCain would have won outright. John McCain is a steady man, with a strong sense of self, has many policies that are different from George W. Bush and was ready to make a change as well. He didn’t voice it soon or loud enough, because when Obama took the reigns after Hillary stepped down, he was off to victory.
Many people saw John McCain as old and tired, and feared he was incapable of being a president based on his age alone. In a debate where his chair wasn’t the right height for him, he was swiveling around, and people thought that this was the sign of uncertainty or nerves. He may have been the most confident candidate, but he certainly did not portray that in the charismatic sense that president Obama did, and because of this, John McCain lost the 2009 election.
Although their policies do matter, and are important the society today, people are mostly swayed by the personalities and attitudes of the candidates in presidential elections. John Kerry, confident but stiff, could not have run the country because of his condescending attitude. Al Gore, knowledgeable and like-Clinton he was in his policies but his dry personality kept him from the victory that Clinton had experienced the last two elections. Nixon, more qualified and ready to take the country further in his presidency, lost based on the public perception of him versus the young ambitious Kennedy. The trend continues to climb, and, after having the most charismatic president that we have had thus far, will continue to climb most likely indefinitely. When voting, make sure you are reading the policies, because you never know when you are voting for someone based on the tone of their voice.
http://www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php?entrycode=kennedy-nixon\
http://www.paulgraham.com
The first example is Bill Clinton. He was very charismatic, comfortable under all spot light circumstances, and young at heart. Paul Graham, a famous essayist, author, and “was” Republican said this about his vote during the presidential election of 1993, “But when I think about why I voted for Clinton over the first George Bush, it wasn't because I was shifting to the left. Clinton just seemed more dynamic. He seemed to want the job more. Bush seemed old and tired. I suspect it was the same for a lot of voters” (Graham 2006). He didn’t base this vote off of the issues, but off of the personality. People believe in someone who is more energetic. They believe, even if they just use their upbeat personality to prove it, that they will be a better more engaged president.
This is proven later when in 2004, Gore who is seemingly dry and uninteresting ran for the presidency against George W. Bush and had almost identical policies as Bill Clinton, but without the charisma that Clinton portrayed. Because of this lack of charisma, he lost to George W. Bush and will probably never be considered for the office again. At the time, George W. Bush seemed more charismatic, and the people wanted to believe in him because of it. This may not have been the sole cause of the win, but the overwhelming confidence in Bush definitely played a role in his triumph over Gore.
Four years later, it is again the case. When Bush ran against Kerry, it was pretty much a known fact that Kerry was smarter, and more articulate than Bush. He was a lawyer, debating was his strong suit, but he never quite had the edge over the confidence and charisma of George W. Bush. Kerry was seen as a stiff, especially after the political debates, where he held a very condescending attitude towards the man that had held the office for the last four years. People wanted to see Bush succeed after all that had happened, including 9/11 and the recent engagement of the war in Iraq, because of his attitude and confidence about the matter. Because Kerry was so condescending and “stiff”, he lost the race.
Now I am going all the way back to the 1960 presidential debates, between Kennedy and Nixon. These were the first ever televised presidential debates. Although television was quite new at this time, many people still had one. Those who were listening on the radio though that the debate was about a tie. Those watching the debate on television thought that Kennedy won. Unfortunately, many people watched this on TV and drew their own conclusions, based on the charismatic looks of Kennedy, without even knowing. He was younger, wore make up for television, and seemed more energetic by the looks of him. Nixon, on the other hand, had just recovered from illness, refused to wear make up for television, and looked significantly older. This ended up really hurting him, because he didn’t look to be as energetic and capable as Kennedy. John F. Kennedy ended up winning the election, of course, and it could have been because of his outstanding charisma.
Although I think it is ridiculous that one could base their presidential vote off of charisma, it happens. Many people think that politics are dry and boring. They do not want to be involved and think that they are not going to make a difference either way. When a charismatic man is running for office, people start to want to involve themselves. They want this person to succeed because this candidate is actually helping them want to be involved in politics. They are interested in their actions, because they are an actual fan of this person. If I were not interested in politics, whatsoever, but I knew about the current state of the economy and I didn’t have adequate health care of course I would have voted for Obama. He was engaging, charismatic, friendly, and seemed like an everyday man.
Speaking of Obama, this is the best example of charisma winning the presidency. Many people perceived him as ready to take office, without him even finishing one term in the Senate, because of his rhetorical abilities. Talk show hosts wanted to have him on their shows, venues wanted to host his speeches, everyone wanted to associate themselves with President Obama during the election because whether or not they supported him, he was a fascinating speaker. He engaged so many people that would not have normally been interested. If someone were to (and MANY people have) sit down and look at his record and education next to John McCain, John McCain would have won outright. John McCain is a steady man, with a strong sense of self, has many policies that are different from George W. Bush and was ready to make a change as well. He didn’t voice it soon or loud enough, because when Obama took the reigns after Hillary stepped down, he was off to victory.
Many people saw John McCain as old and tired, and feared he was incapable of being a president based on his age alone. In a debate where his chair wasn’t the right height for him, he was swiveling around, and people thought that this was the sign of uncertainty or nerves. He may have been the most confident candidate, but he certainly did not portray that in the charismatic sense that president Obama did, and because of this, John McCain lost the 2009 election.
Although their policies do matter, and are important the society today, people are mostly swayed by the personalities and attitudes of the candidates in presidential elections. John Kerry, confident but stiff, could not have run the country because of his condescending attitude. Al Gore, knowledgeable and like-Clinton he was in his policies but his dry personality kept him from the victory that Clinton had experienced the last two elections. Nixon, more qualified and ready to take the country further in his presidency, lost based on the public perception of him versus the young ambitious Kennedy. The trend continues to climb, and, after having the most charismatic president that we have had thus far, will continue to climb most likely indefinitely. When voting, make sure you are reading the policies, because you never know when you are voting for someone based on the tone of their voice.
http://www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php?entrycode=kennedy-nixon\
http://www.paulgraham.com
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
How politicians are currently reaching potential voters: the Internet
Our society is changing, technologically and otherwise, and makes it very difficult for politicians to reach voters their traditional ways. Before, voters could be reached via home phone and paper mail. Commercials were also very effective before, but as TiVo and DVR become more common in homes, they can be easily surpassed. Those who have a home telephone are no longer in the majority, and cell phone companies do not give out a phone directory that is accessible to politicians. Not only this, but paper mail is not read quite as often because with online bill paying, people no longer have to wait for their paper bills to arrive. With all of these changes, politicians need a way to reach voters that is different from the traditional means of communication; the Internet.
The Internet provides many different avenues for political communication. Many politicians have made social networking sites, on networks like Facebook and Twitter, in order to reach the younger generation. Participation in these sites is effective because it sends out daily messages which are simple and easy to understand to the “friends” of these sites. It can bring about the topic or platform of the candidate without causing discrepancies, because the casual setting makes these topics less controversial. They are also presented in a less controversial way, as to not detour friends that may not be the same political affiliation as the candidates. For example, here is a recent status update from John McCain, “CIT Bankrupt – taxpayers investment of $2.3 billion wiped out,” instead of stating plainly, “Obama misuses taxpayer dollars” or something of the sort. This way, people are not turned off to the statement, especially Obama supporters. He can’t say, “I was right, taxpayer dollars are being misused and if I were president this wouldn’t be happening,” so he has to do it subtly.
Twitter is also a great way for politicians to reach supporters and those who are politically inactive. Many of the people who are not extremely active in politics have these social sites and Twitter, for example, can involve these people constantly. If someone follows a politician, they can see their every update right on their home screen. This is nice because they see that these politicians are not just politicians, they are people. Yes, some updates include policies and comments that are similar to their current predicament, politically, but there are also many updates about every day things. For instance, the politician could say, “Bronco’s vs. Steelers tonight, hoping the Donkey’s pull through” or something of the sort. This is in some ways homophily and they reach potential voters on an entire new level. If the voters feel like they have something in common with the politician, like I stated in my earlier blog about Obama and homophily, they will be more likely to vote for and like the candidate. Politicians are dishonest; they do what they have to in order to win an election or win votes for a policy. This small piece of their personal lives helps the voters look at the better side of these politicians.
Status updates on Facebook and Twitter are among the few ways politicians can reach voters via the Internet. The next which is also effective is Gmail. Many people have no idea that every email you send on Gmail is run through a process and then advertising in your email is based on what you write about. For example, if someone sends you a YouTube video of Barack Obama or George W. Bush, Gmail will then advertise candidate web sites or blogs on the side of your inbox, where it is easily accessible, and probably something that the account holder will be interested in.
Another way politicians can make connections with their potential voters and also bring up policies in a more casual way is through blogging and town hall meetings. Reading a politicians blog is much more interesting than reading a mailer or a piece of paper that is hung on your door knob. When I get mailers, or door hangings, I know that I just throw them away and do not give them a second’s glance. I am sure many people are the same way, because we just see it as a nuisance clogging our mail box. Blogging can tell the people reading them the day to day struggles with the lives of being a politician and also can portray their policies in a simpler manner. Congressman Earl Blumenauer (D-OR: 3rd District) isn't blogging yet, but he began hosting an online town hall chat with his constituents. This is pretty amazing- people do not have to leave their home to be involved in a town hall meeting. This way, many more can be held, and people like single parents, or people that work at night, can maybe participate whereas before they could not. The ability for the Congressman to send email invitations for people to join a town hall chat is amazing, and will be very effective in getting more people to be involved in current politics.
An obvious way politicians can reach potential voters is through their web sites. During an election, every potential candidate has their own web site. Through this site, they post their positions, background, current issues, ways for people to volunteer, a blog, national highlights, and an area for people to donate. Anything that anyone wants to know about a politician can be looked up in just seconds. This is a great resource for the uninformed voter, because they can look up the candidates’ positions and make the best decision for them.
Although the Internet makes it more efficient for politicians to reach constituents, it can also be problematic for them. Not only do candidates and politicians have Twitter and Facebook, but the rest of the country can have it as well. People are constantly posting updates about something they do not agree with politically, and everyone can see it. Just as the politician’s updates can help them, the updates from non supporters can hurt them. When Sarah Palin wrote on her Facebook account that the Healthcare Reform included death boards, there was an up roar all over the country. It didn’t even take a day for the press to get a hold of it and for Obama and Healthcare Reformation supporters to have to form some type of defense for the misinterpreted information. This brings up another good point about the Internet: news travels fast. In this example, the Obama Administration was hurt temporarily until the “death boards” controversy was cleared up, but usually, the Internet making news travel quickly is a good thing. These politicians are reaching the people quicker.
Blogging, which as stated before can really help the politicians, can also hurt them. Many people, without any type of credentials, can have blogs where they depict and twist the words and policies of politicians which is detrimental to them. Bloggers read each other’s blogs, and then respond to them, and write other blogs in response. With each step, the information becomes more and more skewed, and eventually the information that these bloggers are writing about politicians is hardly true. When many people read these blogs, however, they do not take that into account and maybe take what is said to heart.
The Internet has brought about a more efficient means of communication where politics are concerned, but simultaneously has brought about an entire new list of issues. Before, when the media would not choose to focus on something, it was left out. Now politicians have to watch their every move because it is all documented via the Internet, but they can now, at the touch of a button, share their ideas and policies to millions of people.
The Internet provides many different avenues for political communication. Many politicians have made social networking sites, on networks like Facebook and Twitter, in order to reach the younger generation. Participation in these sites is effective because it sends out daily messages which are simple and easy to understand to the “friends” of these sites. It can bring about the topic or platform of the candidate without causing discrepancies, because the casual setting makes these topics less controversial. They are also presented in a less controversial way, as to not detour friends that may not be the same political affiliation as the candidates. For example, here is a recent status update from John McCain, “CIT Bankrupt – taxpayers investment of $2.3 billion wiped out,” instead of stating plainly, “Obama misuses taxpayer dollars” or something of the sort. This way, people are not turned off to the statement, especially Obama supporters. He can’t say, “I was right, taxpayer dollars are being misused and if I were president this wouldn’t be happening,” so he has to do it subtly.
Twitter is also a great way for politicians to reach supporters and those who are politically inactive. Many of the people who are not extremely active in politics have these social sites and Twitter, for example, can involve these people constantly. If someone follows a politician, they can see their every update right on their home screen. This is nice because they see that these politicians are not just politicians, they are people. Yes, some updates include policies and comments that are similar to their current predicament, politically, but there are also many updates about every day things. For instance, the politician could say, “Bronco’s vs. Steelers tonight, hoping the Donkey’s pull through” or something of the sort. This is in some ways homophily and they reach potential voters on an entire new level. If the voters feel like they have something in common with the politician, like I stated in my earlier blog about Obama and homophily, they will be more likely to vote for and like the candidate. Politicians are dishonest; they do what they have to in order to win an election or win votes for a policy. This small piece of their personal lives helps the voters look at the better side of these politicians.
Status updates on Facebook and Twitter are among the few ways politicians can reach voters via the Internet. The next which is also effective is Gmail. Many people have no idea that every email you send on Gmail is run through a process and then advertising in your email is based on what you write about. For example, if someone sends you a YouTube video of Barack Obama or George W. Bush, Gmail will then advertise candidate web sites or blogs on the side of your inbox, where it is easily accessible, and probably something that the account holder will be interested in.
Another way politicians can make connections with their potential voters and also bring up policies in a more casual way is through blogging and town hall meetings. Reading a politicians blog is much more interesting than reading a mailer or a piece of paper that is hung on your door knob. When I get mailers, or door hangings, I know that I just throw them away and do not give them a second’s glance. I am sure many people are the same way, because we just see it as a nuisance clogging our mail box. Blogging can tell the people reading them the day to day struggles with the lives of being a politician and also can portray their policies in a simpler manner. Congressman Earl Blumenauer (D-OR: 3rd District) isn't blogging yet, but he began hosting an online town hall chat with his constituents. This is pretty amazing- people do not have to leave their home to be involved in a town hall meeting. This way, many more can be held, and people like single parents, or people that work at night, can maybe participate whereas before they could not. The ability for the Congressman to send email invitations for people to join a town hall chat is amazing, and will be very effective in getting more people to be involved in current politics.
An obvious way politicians can reach potential voters is through their web sites. During an election, every potential candidate has their own web site. Through this site, they post their positions, background, current issues, ways for people to volunteer, a blog, national highlights, and an area for people to donate. Anything that anyone wants to know about a politician can be looked up in just seconds. This is a great resource for the uninformed voter, because they can look up the candidates’ positions and make the best decision for them.
Although the Internet makes it more efficient for politicians to reach constituents, it can also be problematic for them. Not only do candidates and politicians have Twitter and Facebook, but the rest of the country can have it as well. People are constantly posting updates about something they do not agree with politically, and everyone can see it. Just as the politician’s updates can help them, the updates from non supporters can hurt them. When Sarah Palin wrote on her Facebook account that the Healthcare Reform included death boards, there was an up roar all over the country. It didn’t even take a day for the press to get a hold of it and for Obama and Healthcare Reformation supporters to have to form some type of defense for the misinterpreted information. This brings up another good point about the Internet: news travels fast. In this example, the Obama Administration was hurt temporarily until the “death boards” controversy was cleared up, but usually, the Internet making news travel quickly is a good thing. These politicians are reaching the people quicker.
Blogging, which as stated before can really help the politicians, can also hurt them. Many people, without any type of credentials, can have blogs where they depict and twist the words and policies of politicians which is detrimental to them. Bloggers read each other’s blogs, and then respond to them, and write other blogs in response. With each step, the information becomes more and more skewed, and eventually the information that these bloggers are writing about politicians is hardly true. When many people read these blogs, however, they do not take that into account and maybe take what is said to heart.
The Internet has brought about a more efficient means of communication where politics are concerned, but simultaneously has brought about an entire new list of issues. Before, when the media would not choose to focus on something, it was left out. Now politicians have to watch their every move because it is all documented via the Internet, but they can now, at the touch of a button, share their ideas and policies to millions of people.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
How Polling Hurts, Not Helps, Our Political System
Many people think that polling is an accurate measure of public opinion. They do not know to what extent and depth these polling companies strive for in formulating results. As of 2004, only 28 percent of American’s age 25 and over had completed a college degree of some sort (www.census.gov); where most people are introduced to statistics, the class that explains surveying and its’ faults. I am not saying that 72 percent of Americans that age and over are completely ignorant to the skepticism surrounding polls, but it is very likely that they aren’t aware of the extent of the inaccuracies. If polls are relying on the ignorance of the American people to be successful, they are not acting in the best interests of the country. This blog will explain many of the reasons polls are inaccurate and will show how these inaccuracies of polling are hurting our political system today.
The first way that polling hurts our political system is how unrepresentative it is. In many cases, people have to be willing to answer phone interview questions, reply to mail surveys, or reply to an email that may be lengthy and seem pointless. The people that reply to these have enough time, first of all, to answer these questions and two, probably have a strong opinion either about one political party or another, or maybe have a strong opinion about not having an opinion. People also do not pay attention to what type of poll it is, and who was surveyed in the first place. Also, many questions might be worded where it is supposed to confuse the person taking the poll as to have the results go in favor of the polling company. For example, in a position poll, if a pollster were to ask someone, “Do you support the killing of fetuses?” they would probably say no, but if they were to ask, “Are you pro-choice?” than they would receive a much more accurate representation of the question they are asking. No one wants to say they support the killing of fetuses, obviously. The ways in which these positions are framed have a large impact on how the people being polled will answer. This is a strategy that polling companies use in order to get the results they want, to hopefully show politicians what stances they should support themselves. So not only do these polling companies trick the listeners, they then use this skewed information and sway the politicians as well.
Because polling companies are trying to stay in the eye of the public, they try to show information that the public would want to see. However, sometimes this does not include people or issues that the polling companies do not want to address. Since polling is a multimillion-industry that is driven by political information, they most likely have an agenda. For example, the Gallup poll asked Republicans who they would like to see run for the GOP ticket and for president in the 2012 election, and they excluded Ron Paul from the available choices. He had much more accredited credentials than many of the people mentioned, along with the fact that he ran for the GOP ticket in 2008 and as the presidential candidate for the Libertarian candidate in 1988. The fact that he was not mentioned on the list was a statement from the Gallup Poll that they do not want him to run. Whatever it is about Ron Paul that is not in their best interests is unknown, but if he were to be a favorable candidate for Gallup he would have been mentioned. What this does, though, is eliminates Ron Paul from the minds of many Republicans. Instead of thinking of who the Gallup Poll left out, they think of which of the presented people they would like see pursue the GOP ticket. The polls can shape the mindset of the people in this way, which is limiting and hurting our political system.
The last aspect of misrepresentation that affects the political system is the coverage that polls present. Actually, Hollihan quoted a reporter in Uncivil Wars that said because reporters and the media cover politics as such a horse-race, “citizens feel detached and bored because it is so seemingly abstract.” This “race-to-the-finish” presentation of the poll results make citizens feel as if they have no control over the outcome of the election, even though votes have not even been administered. This reporter may be correct about some citizens, but others see polls as a threat or a call to action. Through research, Hollihan has found that “public opinion polls have a significant impact on voter expectations for how well a candidate will do in an election and thus may also affect voter behavior.” For example, many people may actually be threatened by a poll, see that their candidate is falling behind, and be more likely to make it to the voting booths on Election Day. On the other hand, voters that see the favorable candidate for them is “winning” in the polls, may not turn out on election day because they feel safe that their candidate will succeed, when that is many times not the case.
Many of the problems with polls, is that people have no idea that they are so inaccurate. As addressed in the beginning of this blog, almost ¾ of the American people over 25, who are the majority of voters, do not have a college degree. This does not mean that these people are not intelligent; it just means they may not have known about all of the discrepancies and misinterpretations that are associated with polling. Unless they seek information on that topic, it is not taught until statistics in college. Because of this lack of knowledge, the ignorant believe-everything-you-hear attitude is unknowingly adopted, making these polls successful. Sample sizes of the data may be very small, and the smaller the sample size the more inaccurate the data is. They could also be polling in an area that is heavily weighted on one side of the political spectrum or another. Even if they call or send mailers out all around the country, polling companies only receive responses from those who have a strong opinion, or, those who have enough time on their hands to answer all questions presented and get them back to the polling company. These results, although nationally representative, do not include those who do not have time to reply, and those who do not wish to share their political positions.
Although polls can sometimes be helpful in forming opinions of elections and the positions of the country, they cannot be trusted as being an accurate representation of the public mindset. There are far too many factors not considered in each type of poll taken to be a nationally representative, accurate portrayal of what the American people actually believe and want for their country. They hurt the political system more than they help it, because not only are voters deceived and their actions sometimes changed because of it, but politicians are deceived as well and change their positions in order to please this false sense of necessity actually imposed by polling companies.
Sources:
http://www.gallup.com/Home.aspx
Hollihan, Thomas A. Uncivil Wars. 2nd ed. Print.
www.census.gov
The first way that polling hurts our political system is how unrepresentative it is. In many cases, people have to be willing to answer phone interview questions, reply to mail surveys, or reply to an email that may be lengthy and seem pointless. The people that reply to these have enough time, first of all, to answer these questions and two, probably have a strong opinion either about one political party or another, or maybe have a strong opinion about not having an opinion. People also do not pay attention to what type of poll it is, and who was surveyed in the first place. Also, many questions might be worded where it is supposed to confuse the person taking the poll as to have the results go in favor of the polling company. For example, in a position poll, if a pollster were to ask someone, “Do you support the killing of fetuses?” they would probably say no, but if they were to ask, “Are you pro-choice?” than they would receive a much more accurate representation of the question they are asking. No one wants to say they support the killing of fetuses, obviously. The ways in which these positions are framed have a large impact on how the people being polled will answer. This is a strategy that polling companies use in order to get the results they want, to hopefully show politicians what stances they should support themselves. So not only do these polling companies trick the listeners, they then use this skewed information and sway the politicians as well.
Because polling companies are trying to stay in the eye of the public, they try to show information that the public would want to see. However, sometimes this does not include people or issues that the polling companies do not want to address. Since polling is a multimillion-industry that is driven by political information, they most likely have an agenda. For example, the Gallup poll asked Republicans who they would like to see run for the GOP ticket and for president in the 2012 election, and they excluded Ron Paul from the available choices. He had much more accredited credentials than many of the people mentioned, along with the fact that he ran for the GOP ticket in 2008 and as the presidential candidate for the Libertarian candidate in 1988. The fact that he was not mentioned on the list was a statement from the Gallup Poll that they do not want him to run. Whatever it is about Ron Paul that is not in their best interests is unknown, but if he were to be a favorable candidate for Gallup he would have been mentioned. What this does, though, is eliminates Ron Paul from the minds of many Republicans. Instead of thinking of who the Gallup Poll left out, they think of which of the presented people they would like see pursue the GOP ticket. The polls can shape the mindset of the people in this way, which is limiting and hurting our political system.
The last aspect of misrepresentation that affects the political system is the coverage that polls present. Actually, Hollihan quoted a reporter in Uncivil Wars that said because reporters and the media cover politics as such a horse-race, “citizens feel detached and bored because it is so seemingly abstract.” This “race-to-the-finish” presentation of the poll results make citizens feel as if they have no control over the outcome of the election, even though votes have not even been administered. This reporter may be correct about some citizens, but others see polls as a threat or a call to action. Through research, Hollihan has found that “public opinion polls have a significant impact on voter expectations for how well a candidate will do in an election and thus may also affect voter behavior.” For example, many people may actually be threatened by a poll, see that their candidate is falling behind, and be more likely to make it to the voting booths on Election Day. On the other hand, voters that see the favorable candidate for them is “winning” in the polls, may not turn out on election day because they feel safe that their candidate will succeed, when that is many times not the case.
Many of the problems with polls, is that people have no idea that they are so inaccurate. As addressed in the beginning of this blog, almost ¾ of the American people over 25, who are the majority of voters, do not have a college degree. This does not mean that these people are not intelligent; it just means they may not have known about all of the discrepancies and misinterpretations that are associated with polling. Unless they seek information on that topic, it is not taught until statistics in college. Because of this lack of knowledge, the ignorant believe-everything-you-hear attitude is unknowingly adopted, making these polls successful. Sample sizes of the data may be very small, and the smaller the sample size the more inaccurate the data is. They could also be polling in an area that is heavily weighted on one side of the political spectrum or another. Even if they call or send mailers out all around the country, polling companies only receive responses from those who have a strong opinion, or, those who have enough time on their hands to answer all questions presented and get them back to the polling company. These results, although nationally representative, do not include those who do not have time to reply, and those who do not wish to share their political positions.
Although polls can sometimes be helpful in forming opinions of elections and the positions of the country, they cannot be trusted as being an accurate representation of the public mindset. There are far too many factors not considered in each type of poll taken to be a nationally representative, accurate portrayal of what the American people actually believe and want for their country. They hurt the political system more than they help it, because not only are voters deceived and their actions sometimes changed because of it, but politicians are deceived as well and change their positions in order to please this false sense of necessity actually imposed by polling companies.
Sources:
http://www.gallup.com/Home.aspx
Hollihan, Thomas A. Uncivil Wars. 2nd ed. Print.
www.census.gov
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Blog 3: Political Advertising through Comedy Shows
In chapter five of Uncivil Wars written by Tomas A. Hollihan, the many different types and effectiveness of political advertising is explained in depth. One point Hollihan makes throughout this chapter is that there is only so much political advertising a person can internalize, before a subconscious barrier forms rejecting further penetration. Another point he makes is that some already disinterested people become more and more disinterested the more advertising they see. A way to break through both of these challenges and reach these voters is through comedy shows. The Daily Show and even Saturday Night Live have a large effect on voters because these shows are promoting one candidate or another, through comical instances therefore persuading the audience without the audience’s knowledge. The most important part of the involvement of these comedy shows is that they are reaching the less-interested American citizens that don’t normally care about the current political situation, and convincing them to involve themselves politically.
Jon Stewart, host of The Daily Show, depicts Bush in an episode as “talking like he is talking to someone stupid. His matter comes off as odder; he wants to stress things more. He talks very general, and speaks like an 8-year-old who has to answer a question but has never read the book” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxsXHXIErHQ). As many people watch, they may think that this depiction of the president’s speech giving abilities stops at funny, but it doesn’t. From there, viewers go on to tell their friends about the excerpt from the night before, showing them clips on YouTube, and so on and so forth. Before you know it, there are millions of people who not only think Jon Stewart is hilarious, but that our president is ill-prepared and a poor speaker. The more criticisms people hear about their leader, the more they will start to believe it. I know when I watch Jon Stewart, I may disagree with his views on politicians but I still find the show hilarious. If I were to watch it every night, I know it would eventually affect some of my political stances.
Another instance that Jon Stewart is trying to persuade viewers’ thinking is when he brought Bill O’Reilly on his show to talk about why O’Reilly said, “A lot of people are fearful, uncertainty breeds fear” – a comment he had made on his show, the O’Reilly Factor, about why people are fearful of Obama as our potential future president. He first used a condescending tone with O’Reilly when he first came onto the show, asking him if he is comfortable and feels safe in the environment of his set, alluding to the fact that his statement of fear with the Obama administration was ridiculous. O’Reilly said to Jon that he is fearful because Obama has done nothing in senate and lead nothing. He also states that Jon Stewart gets paid to cheap shot people, which Stewart admits. Stewart then says that Americans say “we want the tax rate to go from 36 percent to 39 percent, what 3 percent is socialist?” in reply to the accusations O’Reilly has made towards the seemingly socialist views of Obama. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUVuXgy3CVY) If these statements are not political advertising, than nothing is a political advertisement. He is blatantly putting down a supporter of the GOP in order to support Barack Obama in any way necessary, and all the while, viewers see it as funny and believe his points because of the paternalistic demeaning attitude in which he takes on his opponent.
Although The Daily Show is rich with political advertising and is effective in reaching its’ audience, it is nothing compared to the advertising encoded into the scripting of Saturday Night Live. It is far more effective to act out the flaws of the candidates because then when audiences are actually watching the candidates, these faults are all they notice. One scene I found was the Bush daughters talking back and forth about their father. It is obviously a parody about their relationship and how they are twins, and they are asking each other questions about if they really think their father is the man that press and society has said he is. “I keep seeing signs saying he is the worst president ever, dumbest president ever, and biggest liar ever,” is a quote from one of the actresses playing one of his daughters (http://www.hulu.com/watch/42319/saturday-night-live-presidential-bash-obamamccain--montage).This scene is very funny and I am sure generated a buzz of laughter throughout audiences, but it also discredits the president. Many viewers would take from this that his own daughters probably think that he is a poor leader and think that his daughters are as seemingly unintelligent as Bush has been portrayed. This type of political advertising lowers the confidence the United States has in our president.
Saturday Night Live has been used negatively towards many candidates to promote their own interests, but there are definitely ways in which Saturday Night Live uses their wide viewership in a positive manner. For example when Mike Huckabee, former GOP ticket seeker in the 2008 primary election, went on the show, he was there to show his character and make light of the situation which he was currently in. It was mathematically impossible for him to win the GOP ticket at the time, and he had still not pulled out of the running. People everywhere were commenting on the ridiculousness of his actions and how much money he was wasting, and he was there to address it. Although he did joke around about himself, he used Saturday Night Live to make a strong point (http://www.hulu.com/watch/42319/saturday-night-live-presidential-bash-obamamccain--montage ). He was determined, he was not a quitter, and he didn’t take himself too seriously. Yes, when it comes to issues Mike Huckabee is a strong arm, but he wanted to American people to see his lighter side, because then maybe they would relate to him, understand and like his sense of humor, and look for him in the future elections. He used Saturday Night Live as a tactic for advertising himself for future elections.
One last example of political advertising through comedy shows is the Barack Obama skit about Halloween. Many people stated during the election that Obama wavered in his positions and that he was unclear about them as well. When a child asked him in a Saturday Night Live skit what he was going to be for Halloween, he said he was going to be dressing as himself because he didn’t want to be anyone else. This addresses Hollihan’s argument that the most effective campaigns link the messages of the advertisements (or the message of his skit in this show) to the news stories in the media. Since newscasters (mostly on Fox) were continually commenting on his wavering stances, he chose to address it this way (http://www.hulu.com/watch/42319/saturday-night-live-presidential-bash-obamamccain--montage).
Comedy shows are not considered, by most, a form of political advertising. They are either considered entertainment or a newscast, but this is where I beg to differ. If candidates can be guests on these comedy shows and display their moral fiber and stances for the audience, or if a host is going to promote one political figure or put down another through ridicule, I believe it to be considered political advertising. It is also extremely effective advertising because it is reaching those that are not normally involved in politics and helping them make political decisions, and it breaks through the barrier Hollihan believes political advertising forms throughout an election.
Jon Stewart, host of The Daily Show, depicts Bush in an episode as “talking like he is talking to someone stupid. His matter comes off as odder; he wants to stress things more. He talks very general, and speaks like an 8-year-old who has to answer a question but has never read the book” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxsXHXIErHQ). As many people watch, they may think that this depiction of the president’s speech giving abilities stops at funny, but it doesn’t. From there, viewers go on to tell their friends about the excerpt from the night before, showing them clips on YouTube, and so on and so forth. Before you know it, there are millions of people who not only think Jon Stewart is hilarious, but that our president is ill-prepared and a poor speaker. The more criticisms people hear about their leader, the more they will start to believe it. I know when I watch Jon Stewart, I may disagree with his views on politicians but I still find the show hilarious. If I were to watch it every night, I know it would eventually affect some of my political stances.
Another instance that Jon Stewart is trying to persuade viewers’ thinking is when he brought Bill O’Reilly on his show to talk about why O’Reilly said, “A lot of people are fearful, uncertainty breeds fear” – a comment he had made on his show, the O’Reilly Factor, about why people are fearful of Obama as our potential future president. He first used a condescending tone with O’Reilly when he first came onto the show, asking him if he is comfortable and feels safe in the environment of his set, alluding to the fact that his statement of fear with the Obama administration was ridiculous. O’Reilly said to Jon that he is fearful because Obama has done nothing in senate and lead nothing. He also states that Jon Stewart gets paid to cheap shot people, which Stewart admits. Stewart then says that Americans say “we want the tax rate to go from 36 percent to 39 percent, what 3 percent is socialist?” in reply to the accusations O’Reilly has made towards the seemingly socialist views of Obama. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUVuXgy3CVY) If these statements are not political advertising, than nothing is a political advertisement. He is blatantly putting down a supporter of the GOP in order to support Barack Obama in any way necessary, and all the while, viewers see it as funny and believe his points because of the paternalistic demeaning attitude in which he takes on his opponent.
Although The Daily Show is rich with political advertising and is effective in reaching its’ audience, it is nothing compared to the advertising encoded into the scripting of Saturday Night Live. It is far more effective to act out the flaws of the candidates because then when audiences are actually watching the candidates, these faults are all they notice. One scene I found was the Bush daughters talking back and forth about their father. It is obviously a parody about their relationship and how they are twins, and they are asking each other questions about if they really think their father is the man that press and society has said he is. “I keep seeing signs saying he is the worst president ever, dumbest president ever, and biggest liar ever,” is a quote from one of the actresses playing one of his daughters (http://www.hulu.com/watch/42319/saturday-night-live-presidential-bash-obamamccain--montage).This scene is very funny and I am sure generated a buzz of laughter throughout audiences, but it also discredits the president. Many viewers would take from this that his own daughters probably think that he is a poor leader and think that his daughters are as seemingly unintelligent as Bush has been portrayed. This type of political advertising lowers the confidence the United States has in our president.
Saturday Night Live has been used negatively towards many candidates to promote their own interests, but there are definitely ways in which Saturday Night Live uses their wide viewership in a positive manner. For example when Mike Huckabee, former GOP ticket seeker in the 2008 primary election, went on the show, he was there to show his character and make light of the situation which he was currently in. It was mathematically impossible for him to win the GOP ticket at the time, and he had still not pulled out of the running. People everywhere were commenting on the ridiculousness of his actions and how much money he was wasting, and he was there to address it. Although he did joke around about himself, he used Saturday Night Live to make a strong point (http://www.hulu.com/watch/42319/saturday-night-live-presidential-bash-obamamccain--montage ). He was determined, he was not a quitter, and he didn’t take himself too seriously. Yes, when it comes to issues Mike Huckabee is a strong arm, but he wanted to American people to see his lighter side, because then maybe they would relate to him, understand and like his sense of humor, and look for him in the future elections. He used Saturday Night Live as a tactic for advertising himself for future elections.
One last example of political advertising through comedy shows is the Barack Obama skit about Halloween. Many people stated during the election that Obama wavered in his positions and that he was unclear about them as well. When a child asked him in a Saturday Night Live skit what he was going to be for Halloween, he said he was going to be dressing as himself because he didn’t want to be anyone else. This addresses Hollihan’s argument that the most effective campaigns link the messages of the advertisements (or the message of his skit in this show) to the news stories in the media. Since newscasters (mostly on Fox) were continually commenting on his wavering stances, he chose to address it this way (http://www.hulu.com/watch/42319/saturday-night-live-presidential-bash-obamamccain--montage).
Comedy shows are not considered, by most, a form of political advertising. They are either considered entertainment or a newscast, but this is where I beg to differ. If candidates can be guests on these comedy shows and display their moral fiber and stances for the audience, or if a host is going to promote one political figure or put down another through ridicule, I believe it to be considered political advertising. It is also extremely effective advertising because it is reaching those that are not normally involved in politics and helping them make political decisions, and it breaks through the barrier Hollihan believes political advertising forms throughout an election.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Homophily and Obama
People have a natural tendency to bond with others like themselves, and tend to choose their political leaders as they would choose their friends. (Hollihan, 85). I would like to agree. I vote for candidates who share common interests with me, and that is the same way in which I choose my friends. Homophily was the most important aspect to candidate image used in the last election, and may have been the reason that Barack Obama was the prevailing winner. Obama may have won the race using this tactic; it was done very effectively. This blog will explain the different ways in which homophily was used by President Barack Obama in the 2008 campaign, and how they were effective in creating a success in his favor.
The first and most obvious way that Obama related to those who would most likely say they voted for him based on homophily, is race. He is the first black president to receive a major party ticket in the history of the United States of America. Of course African Americans would want him to succeed, to prove the last of racism is defeated and that African Americans are not only above inferiority, but to prove that a black man can be superior. In the 2004 election, 88 percent of black voters voted for the democratic nominee, and in the 2008 election, 96 percent of voters voted for the Democratic nominee (CNN, 2009). This eight percent increase is probably due to the fact that these black voters, whether supporting his views or not, want to support someone of their same race. I found that the Latino vote for Obama was 66 percent, compared to the 53 percent that had voted for Kerry, the Democratic nominee in 2004. Even though these minorities are not African American, they feel a connection to him because he is a minority, and they wanted to see a minority, like themselves, succeed. I am not ruling out the fact that they may have been more accustomed to his policies than that of Kerry’s, just that such a large jump in percentages could be largely due to homophily.
Another homophilic tactic used by Obama was the idea that parents without a large amount of financial means raised him. Many people feel that they are a product of their environment, and if their parents do not have a lot of money, then they are destined to lead the same life. This is what we call the poverty cycle. He showed the United States that adversity can be tackled and no matter what a person’s heritage or background is, they can be successful. Many people are very respondent to this because it changes their mentality that they are destined for a lower than mediocre life. Knowing that a minority could perform such a success and reach great heights with little financial base is inspiring and a story these African Americans wanted to see followed through. Those inspired and motivated by the types of ambitions Barack Obama displayed may have voted for him, helping him win the election.
Barack Obama used these two tactics, followed by one more homophilic tactic; the use of drugs and struggle with being raised multi-culturally. He was raised in the church, and taught to have strong faith at a young age. He also had a white mother and a black father, and was taught through this that the mix of his cultural experience would broaden his understanding of the world. He used this experience to his benefit, he seemed at home in both cultures. In the struggle between faith and adapting to his high school surroundings, he experimented with alcohol, marijuana and cocaine. Many young adults can identify themselves with this, because they too have made choices in the past they are not proud of, and know that their president can admit mistake in this area makes him seem like more of an average person than other candidates. It brings him off of his pedestal, which so many presidential candidates have been put on. This increases the likeliness that people will vote for him, because they feel they are closer to him.
Barack Obama’s linkage to pop culture was a homophilic advantage used in his election as well. He mentions and implies his connection with popular culture many times during the campaign. “Talk about a major Jay-Z move. People, we're talking about a seminal moment in the campaign, the merging of politics and pop culture: in which a presidential candidate -- a self-confessed hip-hop head and Jay-Z fan -- references a rap hit and a dance move” this was a section of a Washington Post article depicting the Jay Z move “dirt of your shoulder” done by Barack Obama. This not only showed that the young African American candidate contained a sense of humor, but that he praised popular culture and is not ignoring it. This made many voters, black and white, think of him as timely, fresh and in-the-know. For many, being these things is important because society is continually changing, and understanding cultural norms in imperative to having the respect of the country for which you take charge. I know that even as a McCain supporter, seeing this speech of him on YouTube made me feel a desire to like him, and build a sort of warmness to his character. That he is a person too, not just a candidate, and that he is clever and “hip”, characteristics I think of myself and want see in my friends.
Obama, after inaugurated into office, chose NCAA teams for the final four bracket. He chose Louisville, North Carolina, Memphis and Pittsburgh. This shows the public he is staying up-to-date on the topics that are important to his country, although some may argue he has more important things to be doing. This demonstration of his involvement in popular culture shows me that he has a personality, and can relax. As a student, I know I could be studying more or doing my homework better, but relaxing is vital and I relate to president Obama in the way that sports are very important to me. I know they are for many, who probably had a higher opinion of him as a person after this. Like I mentioned earlier, it brings him down from the pedestal we put him on.
Through cultural similarities to those in the United States, acknowledgement of his mistakes, popular culture, and overcoming adversities in upbringing, Barack Obama can relate to everyone in the United States, somehow. This is what homophily is, relating to a candidate and voting for them based on these prevalent qualities for which you feel they possess as well. Although I believe that much of this homophily was due to race, there are many more types that were non racial and apparent in the 2008 presidential campaign.
Hollihan, Thomas. Uncivil Wars. Vol. 2. Print
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/04/exit.polls/
(http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/18/AR2008041803282.html
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Media Entertainment and Political Agenda Setting
Entertainment Television and Agenda Setting
The media is a very powerful force, as it reaches everyone in America in some shape or form, everyday. Whether it is television, radio, outside media advertising, a magazine, or the Internet, media outlets find a way to reach the American people in as many ways as possible. Many people expect to see political messages when consuming media, but have a fair idea of what television station will be broadcasting coverage such as this. For example, if someone chooses to watch Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, or any other news outlets they will be intentionally engaging themselves in political communication through media messages. Unfortunately, there is no escape from these media messages as they are embedded in our media culture and cannot be escaped, whether or not the media consumer is aware. It is almost impossible for someone to enjoy entertainment television without being persuaded in one way or another about politics in some way. A prime example of this politically charged entertainment television was the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards, which uses its popularity to invite political participation. It does this by using agenda setting to push issues on the viewers that are controversial in politics today, and doing so in a setting which is perceived by viewers as non-political.
Agenda setting, according to Thomas A. Hollihan, author of Uncivil Wars, is “that the media play an important role in determining which issues merit public attention…. And in shaping public attitudes” (Hollihan, 2009). MTV Video Music Awards host, Russel Brand, made politically charged statements throughout the entire show. As everyone knows, healthcare reformation is a very controversial issue right now. Many people are in favor of a change, but are skeptical that the plan formed for us by President Obama is insufficient and will hurt insurance companies and eliminate our freedom to choose caregivers. When Brand announced his heritage to the audience, he explained it as this, “I am from England, yeah, England… Where we don’t let people just die on the streets. We have free healthcare!” This message is agenda setting because this issue is the most prominent issue in politics today, and President Obama is struggling to receive the necessary support to pass the healthcare bill. By having a figure such as this promote the bill, it might help him Obama support. The demographic that MTV reaches is mainly 12-34 year-olds, and this is the same demographic Obama was so successful in appealing to during 2008 election.
The way that Brand approaches healthcare forces the audience to feel a sense of guilt and obligation. Regrettably, Brand makes it seem as if there are a large portion of those who wouldn’t mind if people were falling over and dying because they cannot afford healthcare. This is the way in which Brand invites political participation. He makes the viewers feel that if they do not support the healthcare bill, then they are in that large portion of people who could care less about those dying in the streets. By oversimplifying the issue and appealing to ethos, he is raising awareness and influencing people to support government run healthcare, even if the details are not fitting for our country. Because many young voters who do not educate themselves on the topic hear this, they think “Wow, well I really don’t want people to die on the streets, so I think I’ll support the healthcare bill” without any second thoughts of the consequences that could follow if it is passed.
Some could argue that MTV had nothing to do with Russel Brands commentaries, and that they are not representative of the station. This is invalid because it is not the first time that he has made politically charged comments while hosting an MTV event, in fact, last year at the VMA’s he insulted George W. Bush when saying, “Please elect Barack Obama on behalf of the world… Some people - I think they're called racists… may not be ready to elect a black man. It was nice of you to let that retarded cowboy have a go at it” (IMDb.com). Not only was this quote politically charged, but it was very inappropriate and Russel Brand barely received any “heat” about it after the awards show. In fact, he pointed out in the 2009 VMA’s that some people were bothered by that comment, but that it no longer mattered because Barack Obama is now our president, and that he guessed he was right after all. This shows that MTV fully supports Russel Brands views and delivery, which is agenda setting in itself.
When people watch MTV’s Video Music Awards, they expect to see music’s most popular artists perform, receive awards, and dress to the nines. They do not expect to see political encoding. This is another way that MTV is inviting political participation, by including political messages in a non-political setting to hopefully change the politically inactive to politically active. Only 47 percent of 18-24 year olds voted during the last election and the voter participation for ages 55 and over is about 72 percent (U.S. Census Bureau). MTV knows that its demographic is from ages 12 to 34 so it makes perfect sense that they are trying to interest this demographic in politics, to hopefully encourage more participation.
The problem with presenting political information in a setting where it is not expected is that the speaker is often disassociated with any type of political education, but still has an impact on its viewers. In Uncivil Wars, Hollihan states that “exposure to misinformation or distorted media messages will negatively affect a person’s political efficacy” (Delli Carpini, 2005). Those watching the VMA’s that do not have an adequate amount of knowledge on the subject could jump to the conclusion, without further research, that the healthcare reformation is a good thing and that they need to support it so that people do not die. Russel Brand is an ex-cocaine addict and alcoholic. He also has bipolar disorder and no form of secondary education. Yet this is the type of host MTV has chosen to portray their views, because they believe it will be effective to their audience. His words don’t give the viewers enough information to form an educated opinion, and those without an opinion on the subject already probably won’t research the issue further. Supporting any issue without having a broad knowledge base of the stipulations and causes of the issue negatively affects a person’s political efficacy. Those who are affected by these comments and decide to gain some type of stance on the subject are now engaged politically, the goal MTV had set and may have achieved.
Although many people enjoyed the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards, I was not one of them. I cannot look past comments like this in a setting where people are not asking for political propaganda. To many, Russel Brand is a comedian, who makes light of everyday situations. What they don’t realize, is that he (and MTV) are influencing their views and engaging them politically. People should be able to enjoy entertainment sans bias and the agenda setting media trying to push their views on the audiences. Alas, our society today has formed into one that is politically charged in every aspect and it cannot be escaped.
The media is a very powerful force, as it reaches everyone in America in some shape or form, everyday. Whether it is television, radio, outside media advertising, a magazine, or the Internet, media outlets find a way to reach the American people in as many ways as possible. Many people expect to see political messages when consuming media, but have a fair idea of what television station will be broadcasting coverage such as this. For example, if someone chooses to watch Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, or any other news outlets they will be intentionally engaging themselves in political communication through media messages. Unfortunately, there is no escape from these media messages as they are embedded in our media culture and cannot be escaped, whether or not the media consumer is aware. It is almost impossible for someone to enjoy entertainment television without being persuaded in one way or another about politics in some way. A prime example of this politically charged entertainment television was the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards, which uses its popularity to invite political participation. It does this by using agenda setting to push issues on the viewers that are controversial in politics today, and doing so in a setting which is perceived by viewers as non-political.
Agenda setting, according to Thomas A. Hollihan, author of Uncivil Wars, is “that the media play an important role in determining which issues merit public attention…. And in shaping public attitudes” (Hollihan, 2009). MTV Video Music Awards host, Russel Brand, made politically charged statements throughout the entire show. As everyone knows, healthcare reformation is a very controversial issue right now. Many people are in favor of a change, but are skeptical that the plan formed for us by President Obama is insufficient and will hurt insurance companies and eliminate our freedom to choose caregivers. When Brand announced his heritage to the audience, he explained it as this, “I am from England, yeah, England… Where we don’t let people just die on the streets. We have free healthcare!” This message is agenda setting because this issue is the most prominent issue in politics today, and President Obama is struggling to receive the necessary support to pass the healthcare bill. By having a figure such as this promote the bill, it might help him Obama support. The demographic that MTV reaches is mainly 12-34 year-olds, and this is the same demographic Obama was so successful in appealing to during 2008 election.
The way that Brand approaches healthcare forces the audience to feel a sense of guilt and obligation. Regrettably, Brand makes it seem as if there are a large portion of those who wouldn’t mind if people were falling over and dying because they cannot afford healthcare. This is the way in which Brand invites political participation. He makes the viewers feel that if they do not support the healthcare bill, then they are in that large portion of people who could care less about those dying in the streets. By oversimplifying the issue and appealing to ethos, he is raising awareness and influencing people to support government run healthcare, even if the details are not fitting for our country. Because many young voters who do not educate themselves on the topic hear this, they think “Wow, well I really don’t want people to die on the streets, so I think I’ll support the healthcare bill” without any second thoughts of the consequences that could follow if it is passed.
Some could argue that MTV had nothing to do with Russel Brands commentaries, and that they are not representative of the station. This is invalid because it is not the first time that he has made politically charged comments while hosting an MTV event, in fact, last year at the VMA’s he insulted George W. Bush when saying, “Please elect Barack Obama on behalf of the world… Some people - I think they're called racists… may not be ready to elect a black man. It was nice of you to let that retarded cowboy have a go at it” (IMDb.com). Not only was this quote politically charged, but it was very inappropriate and Russel Brand barely received any “heat” about it after the awards show. In fact, he pointed out in the 2009 VMA’s that some people were bothered by that comment, but that it no longer mattered because Barack Obama is now our president, and that he guessed he was right after all. This shows that MTV fully supports Russel Brands views and delivery, which is agenda setting in itself.
When people watch MTV’s Video Music Awards, they expect to see music’s most popular artists perform, receive awards, and dress to the nines. They do not expect to see political encoding. This is another way that MTV is inviting political participation, by including political messages in a non-political setting to hopefully change the politically inactive to politically active. Only 47 percent of 18-24 year olds voted during the last election and the voter participation for ages 55 and over is about 72 percent (U.S. Census Bureau). MTV knows that its demographic is from ages 12 to 34 so it makes perfect sense that they are trying to interest this demographic in politics, to hopefully encourage more participation.
The problem with presenting political information in a setting where it is not expected is that the speaker is often disassociated with any type of political education, but still has an impact on its viewers. In Uncivil Wars, Hollihan states that “exposure to misinformation or distorted media messages will negatively affect a person’s political efficacy” (Delli Carpini, 2005). Those watching the VMA’s that do not have an adequate amount of knowledge on the subject could jump to the conclusion, without further research, that the healthcare reformation is a good thing and that they need to support it so that people do not die. Russel Brand is an ex-cocaine addict and alcoholic. He also has bipolar disorder and no form of secondary education. Yet this is the type of host MTV has chosen to portray their views, because they believe it will be effective to their audience. His words don’t give the viewers enough information to form an educated opinion, and those without an opinion on the subject already probably won’t research the issue further. Supporting any issue without having a broad knowledge base of the stipulations and causes of the issue negatively affects a person’s political efficacy. Those who are affected by these comments and decide to gain some type of stance on the subject are now engaged politically, the goal MTV had set and may have achieved.
Although many people enjoyed the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards, I was not one of them. I cannot look past comments like this in a setting where people are not asking for political propaganda. To many, Russel Brand is a comedian, who makes light of everyday situations. What they don’t realize, is that he (and MTV) are influencing their views and engaging them politically. People should be able to enjoy entertainment sans bias and the agenda setting media trying to push their views on the audiences. Alas, our society today has formed into one that is politically charged in every aspect and it cannot be escaped.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)