Improving Political Communication

In studying Political Communication throughout this semester, I have discovered many problems with our democratic form of government. By implementing changes to the way politics are done, perhaps our nation can truly live up to the values and ideals set forth by our founding fathers. Problems that I have seen throughout my studies in this class have been the fact that attacking opponents is seen as normal and a way to survive in a campaign race because they are used to make other candidates seem weak, the campaign promises that candidates make during the race and then do not stick to once they are elected into office, and the brutal campaign ads that candidates have aired on TV that create an image of their opponents that is less than appealing, and sometimes even false. It is through these faults in the democratic form of government and the campaign process that make me less keen on voting and diminish my interest in politics

To begin with, the ways that candidates attack their opponents simply to see them cringe, is a heartless and unethical way of approaching that situation. I know that at an interpersonal level of communication, this does not solve problems amongst people. The attack methods used by candidates can be compared to friends who are in the midst of an argument. It seems common for one friend to outwardly attack the friend they are fighting with for the purpose of making that person upset and seem to be weaker. What gets me about this tactic in regards to professional politicians is that they are reverting back to middle school ways of dealing with problems, which, ultimately, makes them appear to be the weaker candidate. I believe that campaigns should be fair and impartial, and that one candidate should not be allowed to make personal attacks on their opponent that have nothing to do with the political issues on the table. This is unfair and only causes both candidates to appear weak in the long run. By eliminating personal attacks in the campaign realm, voters will be able to vote for the candidate they think is the most fit for the job, rather than disregard that person because of the way they were made to look weak by their opponent.

An example of how this form of personal attacks is implemented can be seen in the documentary that we watched in class, Please Vote for Me in which a 3^rd grade class in China holds their first democratic election where they are voting for their next class monitor. This documentary allows people to glance at the faults the democratic form of government has in regards to the campaign process and the competition amongst candidates. In this specific film there are three kids who were chosen by their teachers to run for class monitor. At the beginning the two boys who are running get the entire class to make fun of the only girl running in order to make her appear weaker. This tactic works. The girl cries in front of her entire class, doubts that she can compete against the other two candidates, and thus, loses the race because she appeared to be the weaker one in her class’s eyes. This may be an extreme example of how the democratic form of government is flawed, but it provides evidence for how hurtful and heartless personal attacks against opponents can be.

Another way in which the democratic government system can be tweaked is when it comes to political campaigns is strongly correlated with the idea of personal attacks. The fault I am alluding to is the blasphemous campaign ads that candidates have been known to air on television in order to discredit their opponents. Frequently, these campaign ads are false and misleading, thus causing the candidate that they are aimed at to lose credibility based on lies. The use of these political ads can be effective in getting their message across, and letting the viewers know where they stand on certain issues, but the ads are usually taken way too far, to the point of harming their opponent’s image. At a crucial time in the campaign process, campaign ads should offer the truth about what that specific opponent believes, rather that talking about what the other candidate believes and how that is the wrong way of thinking. By discussing opponents in campaign ads, candidates risk making mistakes with their information, which can backfire and harm their own campaign rather than the candidate that they were attempting to discredit through their advertisement.

An example of this comes from the 1964 campaign for presidency in which Lyndon B. Johnson was running against Barry Goldwater. The ad, which was only aired one time, portrays a little girl counting the pedals of a flower. Later in the clip the camera focuses on the girl’s pupils, and all you can see in them is a mushroom cloud caused by a nuclear explosion. This vision is referring to the Vietnam War and is an attack towards Republican candidate Barry Goldwater who was said to believe that America should use nuclear weapons in order to fight the war in Vietnam. Although this advertisement was only aired the one time, it is said to be the reason that Lyndon Johnson, the man whose campaign aired the ad, won the presidency that year. Once people saw the ad that was mudslinging candidate Goldwater, they immediately decided that nuclear weapons was not the way to go in regards to Vietnam, and this voted for Johnson. The reason the ad was pulled from the air and the Johnson campaign was criticized for airing it in the first place was because it was used to scare voters into voting for him. This type of vote gaining is unethical and tugs at the heartstrings of the voters in our country, but is used to make someone else appear evil. By forcing candidates to use campaign ads to promote their own positive campaign issues rather than attack the negative campaign issues of their opponents, voters will get a more realistic and truthful depiction of each candidate, and will not be forced to determine what is true and false of what the opponent is saying. Mudslinging such as that previously described is wrong and should not be a part of political campaigning.

Another negative aspect of he democratic form of government in regards to campaigns is the way in which political candidates tend to make campaign promises in order to gain the vote of the citizens, yet when they enter office they fail to stay true to those promises. This tactic in campaigning gives voters false beliefs about how amazing the candidate they voted for is. It makes the candidate appear weaker because they are unable to hold to the promises made to the American people, which make those who voted for that person the first time around less likely to vote for them again.

By changing the ways in which political candidates can campaign for the vote could strongly change the democratic form of government in this country for the better. If candidates are forced to refrain from making personal attacks on other candidates, if they are forced to only make campaign ads that emphasize their positives rather than their opponents negatives, and if they are forced not to make campaign promises that they do not intend to keep, then the entire campaign race every four years will be much more truthful, and the citizens voting will be confident that the person they voted into office was, in fact, the right person for the job. I am aware of freedom of speech, which makes my requests for the democratic government quite moot, but perhaps if my suggestions were attempted then more people would be happier with our form of government and the things that needed to get done would.

http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1964/peace-little-girl-daisy

Political Rhetoric and Religion

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands: one nation, under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all”. The Pledge of Allegiance was originally penned in 1892 by Francis Bellamy and has since had many revisions. In 1954 the pledge was modified to what it presently says, including the phrase, “under God”. The Pledge of Allegiance is mostly used in public schools and is recited by school children according to a law that says schools must offer the Pledge on a daily basis. In the past when one would think of the Pledge of Allegiance they did not see it as a religious decree, rather it was seen as an obligation we, as citizens, had to our country. In recent years, however, there has been uproar in regards to the “under God” utterance in the Pledge of Allegiance because this phrase offers a religious suggestion to all who utter it. In this paper I will look at rhetoric and religion in the political sphere, and whether or not it should have a place in our governmental policies and practices.

When our founding fathers established the United States of America, they were all rather religious people. Out of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, the document that our nation was built upon, 30 of them were religiously affiliated to the Episcopalian religious sect. The remaining 26 signers of the Declaration of Independence were affiliated with various other religious sects including Catholic, Congressionalist; Unitarian, Quaker, and Presbyterian. Considering the fact that all of the founding fathers clearly were religious people, then it is understandable why God played a role in the phrases and documents upon which our nation was built.

The United States’ national motto is, “In God We Trust”. This motto has been debated many times in recent years because of the religious sanctions it implies in regards to U.S. citizens. What about those citizens who consider themselves to be un-affiliated with any religion, or those who believe in a religion, but do not worship God? To those people, and other outraged citizens, a belief in God should not play a role in our government and should be removed from both the national motto, and the Pledge of Allegiance, and any other document or phrase penned by our government that suggests any religious affiliation.

In a recent debate over religious sanctions in governmental proceedings, The American Center for Law and Justice Website has an article about the religious phrases used in our government motto and the Pledge of Allegiance. The article, titled ACLJ & Members of Congress Defend National Motto & Pledge at Capitol Visitor Center and published under Jay Sekulow’s Trial Notebook, discusses how in the new visitor center at our nations capitol has the national motto, “In God We Trust” and the Pledge of Allegiance which contains the phrase “under God” both engraved in the new center which has posed a threat to the non-religious visitors of the center. The group opposed to the engraved phrases is the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF). This group says that the phrases engraved goes against the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The ACLJ, however, believes that the lawsuit should be dropped stating that their position is clear: “The fact is that Congress acted appropriately and consistent with the Constitution with the inclusion of the national motto and the Pledge of Allegiance in the Capitol Visitor Center. These expressions echo the sentiments found in the Declaration of Independence and recognize the undeniable truth that our freedoms come from God” (ACLJ Website). Clearly there are confrontations over whether or not the government and government buildings have the right to insist on having religions phrases posted as decorations, however, since the national motto and the Pledge of Allegiance are depictions of our nation as a whole, should it be accepted? Some agree that it should.

Although the previous examples of religion in politics are traditional examples that have been in effect for many years and will most likely not change, there are many current examples of rhetoric and religion in politics that mainly come from the staunch Conservative side of the political spectrum. Case in point, according to a Boston Globe article by Brian MacQuarrie titled, Dobson spiritual empire wields political clout, Dobson stated, “Two starkly contrasting worldviews predominate today's moral and cultural debate. One side defends the traditional values that have made this nation great for more than 225 years; the other works to chisel away at that foundation” (MacQuarrie). The sides that Dobson is referring to are the Democratic and Conservative sides in which the Conservatives are the ones that hold the traditional values, and the Democrats are the ones that are working to “chisel away that foundation”. MacQuarrie continues by saying, “Dobson stands in the vanguard of a crusade by evangelical Christians to place their agenda at the forefront of public debate over presidential and congressional elections, judicial appointments, gay marriage, and the ''life issues" of abortion, euthanasia, and embryonic stem-cell research” (MacQuarrie). Many religious conservatives agree with Dobson on the issue of religion being a motivating factor in politics, and these are the voters that are believed to have played such a crucial role in the re-election of President George W. Bush in 2004.

Though religions conservatives may have helped play a role in winning the election for their favored party, it is hard to say that these religions groups still have the same effect on elections as they used to. In the last election a democrat was elected, and although a groups such as Dobson’s’ strongly disapproved, President Obama still won. These days it seems as though the religious extremists are just getting bashed in the news for their outrageous comments and ideas about the government being corrupt. This leads me to believe that religion and politics should not mix because the country is full of so much diversity and there is not way to appease all religions in relation to the government.

The traditional aspects of our government that were based on religion should stay in place because that is what makes us the country we are. Our founding fathers were the ones who established this nation, which was based on the religious views they currently held. With time, however, more religions have emerged in our country, which is what makes us the melting pot that we call the United States. Religious beliefs of a particular politician should not play a role in determining the fate of our nation because this will only end in destruction. This does not mean that all people who have religious beliefs should be thrown out of the government, rather, politicians need to set their religions agendas aside when making decisions that regard the nation as a whole so that they can attempt to accommodate all religions and walks of life in our nation.

References:

"ACLJ & Members of Congress Defend National Motto & Pledge at Capitol Visitor Center." American Center for Law and Justice. 13 Nov. 2009. Web. 18 Nov. 2009.

MacQuarrie, Brian. "Dobson spiritual empire weilds political clout." Boston Globe 09 Oct. 2005. Print.

"Religions Affiliations of the Founding Fathers of the United States of America." Adherents.com. 04 Nov. 2005. Web. 18 Nov. 2009. .

Politics Online

In an age of Twitter, Skype and Facebook, many of the older generations have been forced to conform to what the younger generations already know and understand. Though the Internet did not really take off in the political realm until a few years ago, it has since then skyrocketed in the number of candidates using it to boast their political agenda and themselves. “E-campaigning has been upgraded from novelty to necessity in the blink of an eye. Candidates must now compete in the wilds of the web, a world with its own rules. Politics and governing may never be the same” (Newsweek). Along with being a great asset to politicians since it became popular, the Internet has also contributed to many problems that arise with candidates. In this paper I will discuss how the Internet is a benefit to politicians when they are looking to reach a wider audience, but also how the Internet can be a hindrance when it comes to information politicians do not want the public to know about.
For the most part politicians use the Internet to better their standing with voters. They use the Internet as a political platform to get their views across, and to encourage citizens to take a bigger role in local and national elections. Voters began to use the internet in order to gain further information on the candidates they were interested in. According to an article from Newsweek on September 20, 1999 titled Pressing the Flesh Online, “Half of all adults now have access to the Internet either at home or at work, and more than half of them at one time or another have used the Net to delve into political topics. By the end of last year, more than 36 million Americans were getting news at least once a week from the Internet--more than triple the number of three years earlier” (Newsweek). Voters look to the politician’s personal websites to gain a better understanding of that candidates agenda, and in order to get to know that candidate at a more personal level than in the past.
In the last few Presidential Elections the candidates have used personal websites as a commonplace to keep in contact with their supporters, and to make it seem as though they know each other on a more personal level. For example, on Al Gore’s website there was an area devoted to just kids, and an area where citizens could gain information on voter registration in their specific state by clicking on that state on a map. Many candidates’ websites, in the past, and currently, have had a Spanish speaking version, and also links to outside news sources. According to the same Newsweek article, “The Gore and Forbes sites are perhaps the most elaborately organized; Bush's the most intent on showing off the candidate himself. Campaigns tend to reflect the candidate, says Phil Noble, an online-politics consultant. And so do the sites” (Newsweek). Political campaigns focus the website of the candidate on their personality, and the beliefs they hold. These websites cater to specific audiences, which is a major way they have been gaining support from voters.
Another way in which the Internet is used in politics is in online news sources. People rarely have time these days to watch the news on television, or read it in the newspaper. Therefore, the Internet has become a massive news outlet since every news source in the country has established an online site that gives voters easier access. As opposed to TV or newspaper news, online news sources are immediate, and always available. They are constantly updated with the latest news stories, which is very beneficial to politicians. The Newsweek article previously mentioned states, “Television--broadcast, cable and satellite--remains the overwhelmingly powerful vehicle for mass-market, passive, one-way selling. But the Internet is fast becoming a Virtual New Hampshire: a quirky but pivotal place where campaigns are launched or scuttled, where savvy organizers and voters roam in search of action, answers and influence” (Newsweek).
In contrast to the Internet being a beneficial outlet for politicians, it can also have severe hindrances on campaigns, and damage the image of candidates. As addressed in the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights, Freedom of Speech is a right that all citizens of the United States possess. With this a few problems come about when we are talking about politics on the Internet. Much of the political content on the Internet is created by average citizens who want their voices to be heard. This, however, can backfire on politicians when the information citizens are putting on the Internet is not in their favor. For example, the Newsweek article states, “Last fall Exley bought the domain name gwbush.com for the standard $70. Bush staffers then rejected his offer to sell them the site for $350,000. Now Exley has turned it into a savage parody of the Texas governor, including a fake picture of the candidate snorting coke. I figured Bush would be annoyed, and it would be fun to haggle with his campaign, says Exley” (Newsweek). This type of thing happens all the time, especially as we are coming up with more technological advances. Fake pictures, viral videos, crude comments, these are all aspects of politics online that do little to help the candidates win support. Because the Internet is immediate, there is no way of stopping certain things from being shown to millions of Americans in a matter of minutes.
Along with slanderous websites, there are websites that contain videos such as Youtube, which play host to millions of videos ranging from music, to home videos made in someone’s living room, to clips from TV shows and news broadcasts of politicians making fools of themselves. Once a politician says something insulting, or misuses a word an any way, it is immediately posted on websites such as Youtube, where in a matter of minutes people are watching it and sharing it with their friends and family. Eventually these videos and other embarrassing items caught on camera, can lead to the downfall of some candidates. One main example of these viral videos and slanderous comments made on the Internet were about Sarah Palin, the recent Vice President Elect running with John McCain. Since McCain chose Sarah Palin to be his running mate, there have been numerous accounts of poking fun and spoofs that relate to her politics, her past, and even the way she talks.
Despite the disadvantages that the Internet provides in regards to politicians, many times if something is put on the Internet that is so horrible, charges will be filed, and eventually that image or video will be removed. For example, the Newsweek article discusses how with the “Bush snorting coke” fake picture was so offensive and untrue that Exley was ordered to remove the picture and “cease and desist” using that logo for his website. Although the photo was eventually removed, it was still viewed by hundreds of people, and the effect still remained as a part of the Bush Campaign.
The Internet can have strong advantages and disadvantages for politicians looking to be elected. Internet websites that are used to help candidates with their campaigns end up being very valuable when candidates are looking to gain support from voters. It is really just the websites made by individuals, and comments and media added to these websites that decrease the public’s interest in a certain candidate. The question, however, remains: should there be censorship on the Internet in order to protect politicians, or should they just suck it up and deal with what is said about them?



Works Cited:

Fineman, Howard; Vistica, Gregory; Brant, Martha; Alter, Jonathan. (1999). Pressing the Flesh Online. Newsweek Magazine. September 20, 1999.

Politics in Pop Culture

Since the beginning of political campaigns and elections in the United States, trends in civic engagement have always been an interesting subject to research. Throughout history civic engagement has waxed and waned depending on how big the election is, and the political issues that are present at the time. Most recently, civic engagement has erupted in the MTV generation, especially in the 2008 election. Modes of popular culture are used to target and attract the attention of young voters. The most influential pop culture media outlet in the 2008 election was by far MTV. This paper will look at how MTV was used by both parties to encourage voting in the 2008 election, how celebrities, who attract the attention of young voters, went on the campaign trail for the candidates they endorsed, and how, ultimately the Obama Campaign focused much of their attention on gaining the vote of the younger generation which eventually led to him winning the election.
According to APA Online, civic engagement is, “individual and collective actions designed to identify and address issues of public concern. Civic engagement can take many forms, from individual voluntarism to organizational involvement to electoral participation”. Civic engagement is what political parties bank on in getting the vote for their candidate elected. In the 2008 election, the Democratic Party targeted audiences on the television network MTV in order to gain the vote of the viewers, who are mostly young people. As the MTV website admits, their channel primarily targets young adults and teenagers. Both the Democratic and Republican Parties were fully aware of this when they took on the 2008 campaign and were trying to get people to vote for their nominees, Barack Obama and John McCain. A campaign called Rock The Vote was put into place in order to encourage teens and young adults to engage their candidates, volunteer at political events, and learn more about the policies being presented by the candidates. According to Rock The Vote websites About Us section, “Rock the Vote’s mission is to engage and build the political power of young people in order to achieve progressive change in our country” (rockthevote.com). The statement continues to say:
We are creative, effective, and controlled by nobody’s agenda but our own – we tell it like it is and pride ourselves on being a trusted source for information on politics. We empower the 45 million young people in America who want to step up, claim their voice in the political process, and change the way politics is done.
Rock The Vote used its power to effect young people in order to get out and support their candidates, register to vote, and get out the word to their fellow youngsters to vote for themselves and become participants in the campaign process.
Along with encouraging young people to vote through Rock The Vote, MTV and political parties issued the help of celebrities in order to get this generation to take part in politics in order to initiate change. It is a known fact that young people look up to their favorite celebrities as idols, and the fact that many celebrities went on the campaign trail for their candidate and spoke at events really helped in getting young people to vote. Many celebrities visited college campuses around the country to give speeches on why students needed to register to vote, and why they needed to be active in the political process. After all, it is our futures that are at stake here. At Colorado State University a few weeks before the 2008 election, celebrities Eva Longoria, Kal Penn, and Adam Rodriguez spoke to several hundred community members about the need to get out and vote, and to encourage friends and family members to vote. As Longoria stated in her speech, “college students and young adults will be responsible for the future created by today's political climate” (rockymountaincollegian.com). This was the focus of many of the trio’s stump speeches throughout the country in hopes of gaining more support for their particular candidate, Barack Obama.
Another example of celebrities joining the campaign for their candidates is when the Beastie Boys made a stump speech last minute on the Colorado State University Plaza on Election Day just hours before the polls closed. Because Colorado was a swing state in this election, the Beastie Boys rappers Adam Horovitz and Adam Yauch said, “If you know anybody that is undecided, or their friends, or your auntie, or your Nana, please call them wherever they may be and get them out to vote,” Horovitz said. “This is a state where this does matter” (rockymountaincollegian.com). Clearly the influence of all of the celebrities that attended CSU, and many other colleges around the country, helped in getting younger people to vote. Because these celebrities took time out of their busy schedules in order to travel the country enticing their fans to vote, they truly made a difference in the separate campaigns that they had joined.
The 2008 election was the most anticipated in history. The country as a whole was ready for change in leadership and it would come in the form of either Democratic nominee Barack Obama, or Republican nominee John McCain. Each candidate and their campaigns had separate targets while on the campaign trail. Senator John McCain focused a lot of his effort on Veterans and Senior Citizens, and Senator Barack Obama focused much of his efforts on young people. Both candidates knew that they needed to put a lot of campaigning effort into states that were considered to be swing states, including Colorado.
By far, the most effective effort by either of the candidates was those of the Obama Campaign which used young voters as a focal point for their campaign. Barack Obama used the last few weeks leading up to the election to rally at college campuses around the country. In one day he rallied in Denver, Colorado, and immediately headed north for a rally at Colorado State University, which boasted about 50,000 students and community members. As people lined the sidewalks of campus, members of the Obama Campaign at CSU went through the lines and registered people to vote. There was a record turnout for this rally in which Obama focused on his agenda, and telling the crowd that if they wanted positive change in the white house then they needed to vote for him. In having rallies at college campuses, and insisting that the vote of the young person was what really counted in this election, Barack Obama insured his win for the White House.
By using popular culture in politics, political campaigns and candidates have a much stronger outlet to have their agenda known. Through the course of the 2008 election, both candidates, McCain and Obama, used MTV and Rock The Vote to get their messages out there. Each campaign used celebrity endorsements to help on the campaign trail in getting people to register to vote, and to actually go out and vote, and although each candidate had a different target audience for their campaigns, each nominee for President focused on that target audience in order to gain the vote. Barack Obama focused his efforts on the younger generation, which ultimately lead to him winning the Presidency.




Works Cited:
APA Online. (2009). Civic Engagement and Service Learning. Retrieved October 26, 2009 from http://www.apa.org/ed/slce/civicengagement.html.

Hart, Johnny. (2008). Stars speak at CSU, campaign for Obama. Rocky Mountain Collegian. Retrieved October 26, 2009 from http://media.www.collegian.com/media/storage/paper864/news/2008/10/03/News/Stars.Speak.At.Csu.Campaign.For.Obama-3469940.shtml

Myers, Eric. (2008). Beastie Boys stump last minute on the Plaza. Rocky Mountain Collegian. Retrieved October 26, 2009 from http://media.www.collegian.com/media/storage/paper864/news/2008/11/05/News/Beastie.Boys.Stump.Last.Minute.On.Plaza-3525626.shtml#4


Rock The Vote. (2009). About Us. Retrieved October 26, 2009 from http://www.rockthevote.com

Political News

News comes in many different forms. From newspapers, to the internet, radio to television and even news magazines. Each type of news outlet comes with their own ways of interpreting the news, whether they lean to the left side of the political spectrum, or to the far right. Some also fall in the middle and at all different points on the spectrum. When it comes to the different ways in which a specific news outlet portrays a political news story there are four ways in which political journalism is viewed. These views include; news as “objective”, liberal bias, conservative bias, and economic or institutional bias. All news outlets use at least one of these four views of journalism. This paper will look at the national news corporation, MSNBC and how it portrays a fairly liberal bias when it comes to political journalism. I will provide three examples of how MSNBC is a liberally biased news source and how their stories represent the views of the outlet they are produced in.
When a news station is liberally biased, it means that the mainstream media is dominated by liberal political bias. Most journalists identify themselves as liberal or democratic. In reference to this definition, the MSNBC website just in one day contains many stories that emphasize how liberal the reporters are and the news station in general.
In an article posted on the MSNBC website, healthcare is discussed. The article titled, “Health Insurance industry report draws fire: White House, allies attack claim that health bill would add hefty new costs” discusses how the insurance companies are not being very easy to deal with in regards to the healthcare overhaul.
The industry put out a report Monday concluding that the Senate's health care legislation would drive up costs to consumers, delivering a dire message at a crucial point in the debate and potentially threatening President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.
This opinion is clearly not in favor of our democratic president because it goes against he President’s health care reform and implies that the president needs to reform his own heath care plan in order to win approval by the majority of the American people. MSNBC aims to give information on the critical things the Republican Party is saying about President Obama and his plans, and then gives solid evidence to refute these claims by the republicans. Directly after the previously stated quote, MSNBC shows their liberal bias by sharing what the White House democrats said in response:
The White House and congressional Democrats dismissed the late-in-coming message as a "hatchet job." But it put them and their allies on the defensive a day ahead of a pivotal vote in the Senate Finance Committee on sweeping legislation that aims to achieve Obama's goals of extending coverage to the uninsured and curtailing spiraling medical costs.
This quote clearly depicts the view of MSNBC in that it defends the president and his efforts to pass the health care plan that he has put forward.
The remainder of this article continues to support the president and his health care reform. Although it does give both sides of the issue, because this media outlet is liberally biased, it is understandable that an article on health care would be more in support of the democratic president, rather than defending the opposing side.
Another article on the MSNBC website is about the recent Gay Rights march on the White House. This article, titled, “Frank: D.C. Gay Rights march misses mark: Congressman urges gay rights advocates to follow NRA playbook and lobby”. In this article the first openly gay member of Congress, Barney Frank, discusses the march and how instead of marching, gay rights activists should lobby their elected officials instead. To the Associated Press, Frank said that he considered such demonstrations to be “an emotional release that does little to pressure congress”. Even though Frank does not agree that this act of protest is an effective form to persuade congress, the article is clearly liberally biased because it is discussing gay rights which are strong liberal issues. If this news source had a conservative bias, then gay rights would either not be discussed, or discussed in a negative way. Barney Frank is not bashing gay rights activists with his comments, he is simply saying that there are better ways to go about getting the word out, and there are certainly better ways of being heard by lobbyists and politicians.
The third and final article from MSNBC that we will look at is about President Obama and his economic agenda. This article, titled “Obama Agenda: Economy” discusses how republican officials have been criticizing Obama saying that his economic plan for getting the country out of this recession is not working, and that the President needs to give more tax cuts. The main arguments of the article, though, are once again in favor of the democratic president and his decisions. The article discusses a letter that White House economic advisor Larry Summers wrote to the House Republican Leader, John Boehner. In this letter Summers’ is responding to complaints to the President by Boehner and other House Republicans on the state of the economy. These Republican’s complained that, “the administration was having no impact on unemployment and recommended a series of tax breaks to invigorate the economy”. In response, Summers said that,
The $787 billion stimulus package that Congress passed at Obama's urging contained a mix of spending and tax relief that helped avert a worse economic downturn. He said that while unemployment now stands at 9.8 percent, the pace of job losses is decreasing from an average of 691,000 jobs per month in the first quarter of this year to a 256,000 monthly average in the third quarter.
Clearly Summers is in defense of his democratic party and is backing the President in his response to the top House Republican’s complaints.
This article later says that Summers blamed the past republican presidents for the current economic crisis. “The second half of Summers's letter was devoted to arguing that Republican presidents are to blame for deepening the nation's deficits with "fiscal irresponsibility.” This statement, without a doubt, shows a liberal bias when it comes to the economic situation, and backs the President up when arguing against critical republicans.
Though we only looked at one news source to get a sense of how the news media uses journalistic views to portray politics, it is clear that just through this one form of news how an outlet will slant their information towards a specific political agenda. If you look at other news sources you can see the same trends in regards to how they portray politics. It is known that Fox News has a conservative bias, and some news outlets such as Entertainment Tonight and Access Hollywood use an economic or institutional bias with their information. MSNBC is obviously leans more to the left side of the political spectrum with its news, and this can be seen in many different articles that it posts on their website. Discussion of gay rights, health care, and the state of the economy are just grazing the surface of topics MSNBC covers with their liberal bias.
Some may say news outlets using any of the journalistic views previously mentioned is a bad thing. However, whether you are a democrat or republican, you are moderate or like hearing outrageous news, the news source you choose to receive your political information from depends on what party or lack of party you associate with. If you do not agree with a certain issue that a news source is defending, you will choose a news source that sees politics the way you do. There is nothing wrong with news outlets having biases; it just makes American’s more selective when deciding what source to get their information from.


Works Cited:

MSNBC. (2009). Frank: D.C. Gay Rights march misses mark: Congressman urges gay rights advocates to follow NRA playbook and lobby. Retrieved October 11, 2009 from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33252696/ns/politics-capitol_hill.

MSNBC. (2009). Health Insurance industry report draws fire: White House, allies attack claim that health bill would add hefty new costs. Retrieved October 11, 2009 from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33279989/ns/politics-health_care_reform.

MSNBC. (2009). Obama Agenda: Economy. Retrieved October 11, 2009 from http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/10/13/2096905.aspx.

The U.S. Presidency

According to Thomas A. Hollihan in Uncivil Wars: Political Campaigns in a Media Age,

A strong presidential candidate can even influence the outcomes of their elections, as others seek to attach themselves to the president’s ‘coattails’. In some cases a political era even becomes known by the impact of a particular president’s style, public personality, and public discourse (22).

Like Hollihan said, there are many things that American’s look for in a prime candidate for presidency, and these traits are usually what define a president’s term or terms in office.

Each president is memorable for their own reasons. George Washington is remembered for the myth that he cut down his fathers cherry tree, Abraham Lincoln is remembered for ending the Civil War while he was in office, John F. Kennedy and his administration, during and after his time in office, were known as Camelot. George H. W. Bush is known for being in office when 9/11 occurred, and as a result starting two wars, one of which he did not have enough evidence to start. Finally, Barack Obama, who was recently elected, was known as the “Yes We Can” man during his campaign, and he will be remembered in history as the first African American president that the United States has ever had.

Although each president discussed above, and the other 39 that the country has seen in office, have distinct personalities and memorable terms in office, the office of the president is known as a very special position for someone to hold. The president is a person, whom many citizens do not know personally, who we elect to lead our country and expect to make the right decisions. Hollihan states:

The president is not only the ‘commander in chief’ of the world’s most powerful nation, but he (and someday she) also represents how we conceive of ourselves as a nation. Our president’s are the embodiment of our national identity, in no small part because they have an opportunity to shape and sometimes reshape that identity (23).

The goal of the voting citizens of the United States when it comes to election season is to determine who they think will best do the job of steering our country in the right direction if it is off track, or keeping it going in the right direction if it is doing well. When the majority of the nation determines who they think best fits the job of the presidency, that person then has been elected, and in a few months time will be the occupant of that strange shaped office at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in our country’s capital city.

The question that arises for some is what happens when the person we elect to the presidency does not end up living up to our expectations as a nation? Who takes the blame for that? After all, the majority of the voters in our country are running blind when they determine who they like for the presidency in any given election. Very few people know these presidential candidates personally, so when a voter decides that they like a candidate, it is based on an image that the candidate and his or her campaign advisor's have created and maintained. These images are created in order to get the vote, and do not necessarily represent the true persona of the candidate.

When voters elect a president who ends up being a disappointment, there is the decision to have that person impeached. According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary online, impeachment is, “the presentation of formal charges against a public official by the lower house, trial to be before the upper house” (dictionary.com). Though rare, impeachment has occurred, and in one case has lead to the resignation of a president. President Andrew Johnson was impeached in 1868 and after he violated the Tenure of Office Act. Johnson was the only impeached president to be removed from office as a result of the impeachment. The only other president to be impeached was President Bill Clinton. Clinton was impeached in 1998 for perjury, in particular, lying to a federal grand jury. Clinton was also impeached for obstruction of justice which included sexual harassment and abuse of power. Although he was impeached, President Clinton was not removed from office and continued his second term until it was up in 2000. On a side note, President Richard Nixon resigned because of waning political support and the knowledge that he would most likely be impeached.

Even though some presidents have failed to meet the expectations of the citizens of the United States, the president is the one that the country turns to in a time of need. According to Hollihan,

In times of crisis or calamity, this presidential role becomes even more significant. For example, in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the American people, and indeed people around the world, waited in anticipation for a statement from President Bush that would lend some meaning to the events and suggest a course of action (24).

What the country, and the world needed after the 9/11 terrorist attacks was some reassurance that the culprits would pay for what they did. President Bush’s reaction a few months later was to enter Afghanistan with strong military forces and hunt down all members of the Taliban regime so that American’s could have justice against the terrorists that killed thousands of people in New York City, Washington DC and Pennsylvania. The goal was to find Osama Bin Laden who was the mastermind behind the attacks. Seven years later we are still looking for Bin Laden, and the military will most likely continue looking for him for a long time to come.

The office of the presidency is a huge job to take on. Being the president of anything requires many different skills and attributes, but being the President of the United States is not just for anyone. As Roderick Hart, and expert of presidential discourse said,

When most ordinary American’s speak, they speak in behalf of themselves or, at most in behalf of their friends, families, and work associates. President’s, in contrast, represent the viewpoints of the abstract entities—their party, the administration, government itself, the Western alliance (24).

The job of being the President of the United States is a unique position in which not many people are cut out for. However, when the voting citizens of the country elect a president, they are putting the future into that one person’s hands. Although the President is critiqued on a daily basis for not performing the way some people think they should, citizens should remember that being the President is a very hard job and the current president, whoever that may be, is attempting to do the right thing for 307,212,123 people. Not an easy task to take on if you ask me.

Works Cited:

Hollihan, Thomas A. (2009). Uncivil Wars Political Campaigns in a Media Age. Second Edition. Boston, MA. Bedford-St. Martin.

Merriam-Webster English Dictionary

2007 Definition of Impeachment. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/impeachment. Retrieved September 30, 2009.

Candidates Images

Candidate Images:

Throughout the history of voting, elections and party races in our country there have been specific attributes of candidates that the people are looking for when determining who they want to be there next president, senator, mayor, governor and so on. According to Thomas A. Hollihan in the book, Uncivil Wars: Political Campaigns in a Media Age;

All human beings experience their world by creating images of the objects, events, and people that surround them. These highly subjective images both reflect and create a person’s self-identity. The images that we hold give meaning and purpose to our lives (75).

In reference to candidate images, the things we look for are defined by the above quotation, and these are the elements that we refer to when determining what political candidate we like the most, and ultimately who we will vote for. These images, though ingrained in us, are able to be reevaluated based on new information we may obtain about a specific person or party. Therefore, images we create must be able to be re-crafted in order to fit into our new ideas of that image.

In order to delve deeper into what the significance of candidate images are, and why they are important, I will focus exclusively on presidential candidates for the 2008 election, and how their images were crafted towards a target audience. I will look into different tactics for image creating, and what most candidates aim for.

Out of all the presidential candidates for the 2008 election, there were four that really stood out to me, which do not include the final nominees for Presidency. These candidates include; John Edwards, Fred Thompson, Hilary Clinton, and Rudolph Giuliani. Each of these candidates had a special image about them that made the voting population in the United States very intrigued.

To begin with, Senator John Edwards, who was a Democratic candidate, grew up in a small town in North Carolina. His father was a mill worker and owned his own shop. One of the things that attracted so many voters to Edwards was the hardships he had been through. His wife was battling cancer for some time and his first son died in 1996. These are attributes that voters look for with their candidates; someone who has really lived in the world, and knows what it is like to grow up with little, who knows what it is like to have tragedies strike, and who have strived through it and are able to tell others how to deal with those types of situations.

After in John Edwards’ run for the presidency, it was discovered that he spent a ridiculously large amount of money on a hair cut in California, and that he allegedly had a child with another woman that was not his wife. Although denying these allegations at first, in an August 2008 interview, Edwards admitted to the adulterous affair, but denied that he had fathered that woman’s child. Edwards withdrew from the presidential race due to a lack of success in early election polls, and it was months after this January 2008 pullout that he discussed the truth behind his affair.

Along side John Edwards in the presidential race’s Democratic side, was Senator Hillary Clinton, the wife of former President Bill Clinton. Hillary Clinton grew up in a suburb of Chicago, attended Wellesley College where she graduated from in 1969, then attended Yale Law School where she met her future husband, Bill Clinton. Senator Clinton had a lot of experience in the political sphere. She was a part of the impeachment team in the Watergate Scandal, and participated in the Jimmy Carter campaign. When her husband became the governor of Arkansas, Hillary Clinton continued to help with different political campaigns and offices.

While her husband was President, Hillary Clinton had the angst of dealing with a sex scandal that involved her husband. Despite early temptations to leave him, she stayed married to, and supported her husband through his impeachment. Because of Hillary’s strength through her husband’s scandals, many voters stuck behind her, not only in her run for the senate seat after her husband’s presidency was over, but also when she decided to run for President. Hillary Clinton decided she was going to be the first female president of this country, and thus, campaigned long and hard to reach that goal. Many female voters supported Senator Clinton’s aspirations, and therefore continued supporting her candidacy. It was during the 2008 Democratic Primary elections that Hillary Clinton realized her opponent Barack Obama held the majority vote, and therefore dropped out of the race.

On the other side of the political spectrum there was a man named Fred Thompson who was a presidential candidate on the Republican side. Thompson was born in Alabama and was raised in Tennessee where he attended Memphis State University. He later attended Vanderbilt to get his law degree. Thompson was a part of the Watergate Committee where he helped investigate President Nixon and the Watergate scandal. After the Watergate ordeal, Thompson was a lobbyist and lawyer in both Nashville, and Washington DC. In 1985, Thompson was asked to play himself in Marie, which was based on the life of the whistleblower in the Watergate scandal, whom Thompson defended. This launched his acting career where he played in movies with actors such as Kevin Costner, Tom Cruise, and Clint Eastwood. When Thompson decided to run for president he was working on the show Law and Order as none other than New York District Attorney.

Even though Thompson had a large political career before he became a well known actor, much of his popularity in his short-lived presidential candidacy came from his popularity in the movies and TV shows that he was a part of. Thompson announced his withdrawal from the presidential race on January 22, 2008.

The final presidential candidate who really had a strong image was former Mayor of New York City, Rudolph Giuliani. Giuliani grew up in New York City, attended Manhattan College, and received his law degree from NYU. Giuliani spent his political career working in the Department of Justice, and as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York from 1983-89.

Giuliani’s surge of popularity came in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. “His adept handling of the situation in the city led to calls for his term in office as mayor to be extended, but he stood down” (A&E Television, 2007). Because of his strength and leadership after the terrorist attacks, Giuliani’s image became even more secure when he ran for president in 2008. Giuliani was a front-runner in the race until he backed out.

Even though all of these presidential candidates from the 2008 election have different images aimed at different audiences, they all have one thing in common, when they are known for something in a positive way, they hold onto that and use it to increase there popularity. Hillary Clinton was a woman running for President, and therefore focused on different topics that would get support from women voters. John Edwards grew up in a middle class family, and attempted to use that as a starting off point for his political campaign. Rudolph Giuliani was there to pick up the pieces after the terrorist attacks in New York City, and used his leadership and eagerness to fight terrorists as his image for this political race for presidency. After all, who does not want a president that will fight terrorism no matter what it takes?!

It is questionable how well these images fit the candidates and whether they were effective or not considering none of them were the final nominees for the presidential race in 2008, but what would be interesting would be to see what people think about these lesser known candidates and how effective their images were in their campaigns.

For more information on each of these candidates, feel free to go to the website I used.

http://www.biography.com/elections/meet_the_candidates.jsp