Push and Pull: Government and Media's Interactive Relationship

Over the course of the last few weeks, our group has been researching the many different ways in which media and politics interact. We have decided to try and synthesize all the information we have gathered into a cohesive final blog that describes this relationship.

link

Mary Beth wrote in her blog post about how media informs us. Without media, the public would not be informed about what is going on in the political realm, what the issues are, who is a contender, or what is going on in the world.

As she says in her blog "The media acts as the bridge between the government and the people. The only way to gain political awareness is through media consumption. There is no direct communication between the United States and the American people. The media is the informant.”

Taylor focused a lot on trends and found that the trends of mass communication can be seen all throughout the political realm. Some of the particular topics that were focused on were demassification, convergence, interactivity, and globalization. She was able to use great examples to back up her research due to the current Presidential election. Our group posed the question “What has more influence: media on politics? Or politics on the media?”

Taylor came to the conclusion that media has more of a role on politics Due to the impact media plays on society, politicians have to carefully edit their actions. News today is all about the latest scandal and what can be made entertaining. When you combine politics and scandals, it can take things to a whole new level.

Matthew tended to agree with Taylor and found that issues of political stereotyping, socialization, narcoticizing dysfunction, agenda setting, and the two step flow theory all point in the direction that the media shapes politics. Media is the source of our political information. Media shapes the issues our politicians debate. Media creates identities for our political parties. The amount of information media releases to the public desensitizes the voters to political issues.

link

Jordan’s research pointed to some conclusions that were different than those of Taylor and Matthew. Delving into researching the role of media as a political watchdog was much like diving into a whirlpool of murky water.  The relationship between the government and media is very cyclical in nature, with both entities pushing and pulling against one another. She agrees that media can frame political issues and set the agenda, but there are many avenues for the government to influence media. Jordan talks a lot about them in her most recent blog.

Finally, Carly focused on the economics involved. 

Click here for link

She found that when the media tends to focus on the financial aspects, the public views the politicians negatively since all the focus is around them and their money. Even though some think the amount of money used for the campaigns is ridiculous, that money is what benefits the candidates in getting ahead in the race. The financial support of politicians is a huge topic in media currently, and will be for quite some time because money is always a point of contention and concern.

link

In the United States, the media will always be inherently tied together with the political system. As the medium for transmitting the information, the media has an intrinsic power over our politics and how we view them. We are a people powered by technology and communication, with almost unlimited means of obtaining information. Because of this we must be careful to make sure we are analyzing media for ourselves, not just consuming it without thought.

link here

Political Stereotyping

Definitely NOT a Republican...

Freeze. The bolded sentence made some of you laugh (hopefully). Because you understood the sarcasm behind that statement. But where did the sarcasm come from? It stems from a mutual understanding on a key concept (Cowboy Hat + Gun + Southern Accent= Republican). That mental connection is an example of a political stereotype. Stereotyping is an effect of repetitive mass communication that creates the relationship between certain traits and an idea, person, or thing..  This is becoming a big issue in our over saturated society which is compounded by the democratic nature of American society. Writer Andrew Norman explains more in his blog;

"In the US, issue ownership analysis is part of broader theories about voter ignorance. We know from many surveys that the general public has very limited knowledge of political institutions and policies. They tend not to know very much about broader social trends either. This means that electors draw on various informational short-cuts to make political decisions."

One of these informational shortcuts is the stereotyping of political parties. Candidates can now run for office with less to fear about the issues, their voting record, or their moral turpitude; it all has to do with whether or not there is an "R" or "D."  

The use of stereotyping in politics is readily apparent in social commentary about politics. Look at SNL and there use of Tina Fey as Sarah Palin. It was a phenomena which shaked the political landscape. An image was created by the media, and that very stereotype came to define her and the presidential election. 


While it could be argued that this is image branding and not stereotyping, the amount of political coverage which revolves around similar themes is unprecedented. Majors news stations, FOX, CNN, MSNBC etc. will present their stories on politicians through "stereotypical Republican" or "stereotypical Democrat" lenses. 

Sources

1. Inskeep, S. & Roberts, C. (2012, April)

2. Norman, Andrew. http://andrewnorton.info/2008/01/28/what-does-it-mean-for-a-political-party-to-own-an-issue/

3. Rock, Matt. http://matt-rock.newsvine.com/_news/2010/04/11/4144949-political-stereotypes

4. Endicott, W. (2012, Febuary 16) http://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/16/4267438/viewpoints-political-stereotypes.html

Politics, Media and Technology.

We are constantly seeing politicians and government officials all over our news and social media and many of them make good use of new communication technology in order to advance their platforms.

Take Twitter for example. Many politicians are now becoming involved in this social network to tweet about current issues. These are just a few accounts that I looked for and found. All of which are run by a combination of the individual and his or her staff.

Click here to go to page.

Click here to go to page. 

Click here to go to page.

Click here to go to page. 

Governmental institutions and officials are becoming extremely savvy in their use of technology. Or at least the people who work for them are.

And in this digital era of information where knowledge is quickly attained and shared, it is no wonder. Politicians need to be on the cutting edge or they may find themselves left in the dust.

The ability to share information in seconds and have it be available practically anywhere at any given moment is part of an idea called the global village, an idea popularized by Marshall McLuhan. This had led to almost constant scrutiny of government (and countries) by others to see what they are doing and how they are doing it. However, it also creates a lot of distraction and can muddle real issues.

Just go to the New York Times international news page. You will be instantly inundated with information and stories from every imaginable country around the globe. We know so much about the world around us, whether or not we have been to the places we are talking about or not. I was watching this little clip, yes it is old, but I still thought it explained the idea well.

But the availability of information and the use of new means to spread it leaves much to be desired when it comes to the credibility of the information. And what if sources want to be anonymous? There have been plenty of times when this is the case and either the public or the government demand to know where the information is coming from. Recently in my mass communication class we were talking about the reports of weapons of mass destruction by the press and the government. It is a perfect example of how information can be changed or exaggerated to help goad the audience into thinking in a particular way. If you are wondering what I am talking about please click here to learn more.

The media and the government are in a constant battle to stay one step ahead of the other. This may be good, maybe the two keeping one another on their toes is the only way to ensure that we get any true representation of what is going on.

I was doing a little research and I found that there are websites where people can go to learn "whistleblowing" and how to keep the government more accountable.

However, it may be up to us to keep the media accountable. So don't just be a consumer. Be a thinker. Be an analyzer. Learn to be a media critic as well as a political one so that you can be as informed as possible and be a part of the exciting technological age we are in today. 

Media Convergence and Interactivity Among Politics

Social media and politics play an important role for political candidates. It is crucial for a candidate to have media convergence. Certain social site, likes Twitter and Facebook, are key factors in gaining attention for the candidates. All of the social websites, newspaper, magazines, and any other media outlet come together to support or rally for one cause, recently this being the political elections. One particular article summarizes how social media dominates elections. “On Twitter, Mitt Romney has about 376,000 followers, Newt Gingrich has more than 1.4 million followers, Rick Santorum has close to 165,000 followers and Ron Paul has about 27,500 followers. They are all dwarfed by President Obama, who dominates the Twitterverse with more than 13 million followers. Of the GOP candidates on Facebook, Romney last had about 1.5 million likes, Gingrich has 295,979 likes, Santorum has 177,829 likes and Paul with 908,056 likes. But again, President Obama surpasses all the GOP candidates with 25.5 million likes.” Utilizing the power of the social networks is extremely important for politicians gaining an advantage in the race.

Media interactivity and convergence are closely related. Interactivity involves a close relationship between the user and the source. In this case, we are talking about the politicians and their social media sites. In one article, the author studies President Obama’s use of social media in his 2008 election. President Obama took 5 major steps to get his audience to listen to him. “1. Build his political brand 2. Create MyBarackObama.com 3. Present across multiple social media sites 4. Donations 5. Encourage participation.” The President needed to be up to date on all of his sites and encourage his audiences to check out his social media. Without their support, then the President may have not won the election. “The effectiveness of Obama’s online strategy to engage and mobilize people can be seen in some of the numbers:

•                6.5 million online donations

•                $600+ million campaign funds raised, most of it online

•                13 million email addresses

•                1 billion email sent

•                2 million profiles on MyBarackObama.com

•                200,000 offline events planned

•                400,000 blog posts written

•                35,000 volunteer groups created”


Social media is one of the most influential parts of a political election. “For anyone doubting
that a social media message is fleeting, 94 percent of social media users of voting age
watched a political message in its entirety on a social media site…” The number of social
media sites used for political elections is outstanding. As I said earlier, without this kind of
technology who know where we would be in the political spectrum of the world.

Sources:

• Are GOP Candidates falling behind on Social Media? -ABC News
• The Evolving Use of Social Media for Political Campaigns -socialmediatoday

• Election 2012: How Social Media Will Convert Followers into Voters -pcmag.com

  
  

Super-PACs: Bad Publicity?

It has been made evident throughout my recent blog posts that campaign financing is a hot topic in the news lately. Specifically, we are hearing more and more about the Super PACs. These Super PACS, or political action committees, are not supposed to work directly with a candidate, but their financial support helps political candidates significantly with their campaigns.

In the New York Times, there is a section, which focuses exclusively on campaign financing. One of the articles in this section titled, “Campaign Finance (Super PACs),” discusses the 2012 Supreme Court decision made in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and how much it has impacted the current presidential campaign. In this case, it ruled the government, “may not ban independent political spending by corporations, as well as labor unions and other organizations, in candidate elections”.  Most people believe, “allowing corporate money to flood the political marketplace will corrupt democracy”.

Many super PACs have a negative image because of the attack ads they put out against opposing candidates. For example, the video posted below shows an attack made against Obama from the super-PAC American Crossroads.

           Stephen Colbert, a “political satirist” who has entered the Republican presidential primary, has even created his own super-PAC. He has done so to poke fun at the concept of a super-PAC. To show this we need only to take a look at the name of his super-PAC “Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow”.

Once again, going back to the Supreme Court decision of 2010, an article on NPR stated, “opponents argue super-PACS distort the electoral landscape by drastically increasing the expense of campaigns”. Due to this, Colbert has used his mock super-PAC as a way to draw attention to their corruptness. The media has liked his concept, considering how much attention they have been paying to it. It seems Colbert’s mission has been accomplished. 

I hope my mission has been accomplished as well, in informing you about the economic foundations involved in political campaigns. The media will surely be covering it even more as the elections creeps closer.

Sources:

Campaign Finance (Super PACs). The New York Times. (March 2012). Print.

"Super-PAC attacks Obama's open-mic gaffe in spy spoof". The Hill. (March 2012).

American Crossroads YouTube video.

"Stephen Colbert's Super-PAC comes to Austin". NPR. (March 2012).

Voting in Political Elections

The ability to vote is paramount to the success and continuation of a democratic government. But why do we vote the way we do? Well believe it or not mass media has the power to help decide who gets elected. In my last post, I covered how campaigning affects the politicians whom are running for office, now let's look at how mass media effects the people voting for those candidates.

In a humorous use of hyperbole, Family Guy hits the disheartening reality that many voters don't really know why they believe certain things, hold viewpoints, or support candidates. They hear buzz words which generate a connotation based on associations held with those words. So how were the associations built? According to the idea of socialization the associations are created from the experiences people have.

According to the Kids Health organization "kids under age 6 watch an average of about 2 hours of screen media a day, kids and teens 8 to 18 years spend nearly 4 hours a day in front of a TV screen and almost 2 additional hours on the computer (outside of schoolwork) and playing video games."

With that proportion of children's life devoted to mass media there is no doubt it plays a role in everything about their life; including political party affiliation. While it is true there is a direct socialization effect from children copying their parents, generally households tune into news stations which are similar to their beliefs. If a household only watches one source of mass media for their news, they are only getting one perspective on the issues which surround them.

From children to adults, the 24 hour news cycle, the endless supply of political commentators, and the inundation of partisan stories; the mass media plays a large role in how we vote.

Another theory on the effect of mass media is the narcoticizing dysfunction effect; it says that the volume of information creates passive audiences This effect is currently visible in American politics of today. In a statistical brief released by the United States Census Bureau using information collected during the 2008 Presidential election. The numbers showed that the younger a person is, the less likely they were to vote. While there are other confounding variables, it is interesting to note the younger generations are more connected to mass media. 

Sources:

1. Shabazz, A. (2006, May).

2. "What is Socialization?" http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/faculty/baldwin/classes/soc142/scznDEF.html

3. Kids Health. http://kidshealth.org/parent/positive/family/tv_affects_child.html

4. United States Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p20-562.pdf

But...Does Our Watchdog Still Bark: Media and the Government

In my last post  I talked about how the media can be seen as a “watchdog” over the government, This is an idea that has been around for more than 200 years and in one article I found by Sheila Coronel called The Media as Watchdog, she asserts “that publicity and openness provide the best protection from the excesses of power.” 

Americans today may question the idea of the media being the 4th estate still being a true.  Some even think that media being the watchdog is no longer viable because of financial and political ties that constrain and allow politicians to say whatever they please. I think the following clip is a pretty good example of how the mainstream media no longer puts a check on the government: 

In an article written by Bill Moyers he espouses that without a free press the future of democracy is not a good one. 

 “Across the media landscape, the health of our democracy is imperiled. Buffeted by gale force winds of technological, political and demographic forces, without a truly free and independent press, this 250-year-old experiment in self-government will not make it. As journalism goes, so goes democracy.” - Bill Moyers 

And just in case you were thinking that this is solely a topic of discussion and concern in the United States, take a look at this video:  

Besides Australia, other countries (especially in Europe) have raised similar concerns. You only have to type a few words into the google search bar to come up with a multitude of videos and news articles on the topic. 

We should all be concerned with the continuing convergence of media and politics, as it blur the lines between fact and fiction. While this is by no means a call to have government and organizations completely removed from media (I mean, someone has to keep an eye on them too right?), close cooperation between these groups will - and in some cases has - lead to...well I think it was said well by a fellow blogger named Jim Worth

"What we now have, instead of news, are corporate organizations posing as news providers, more interested in fluff and entertainment than the issues of vital importance to an informed citizenry." 

Hopefully media and government are not too involved with one another and we can have information that is based on transparency and credibility. 

Sources:

The Failure of the Fourth Estate. Jim Worth. http://02d30f6.netsolhost.com/blog1/?p=2849

Is the Fourth Estate a Fifth Column? Bill Moyers. http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3790/is_the_fourth_estate_a_fifth_column

The Media as Watchdog. Sheila S. Coronel. Harvard-World Bank Workship. 29-31^st May, 2008. JFK School of Government.
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/pnorris/Conference/Conference%20papers/Coronel%20Watchdog.pdf

Media Inquiry Calls for Single Watchdog. Kylie Simmons. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-02/media-inquiry-calls-for-single-watchdog/3865114

Globalization in the Political World

Globalization is a common word in today’s society. When I think of globalization, I tend to imagine all of the continents merging together to form one unified and informed community. Everyone from different communities would be able to come together to discuss important issues and be on the same knowledge level of current events. Sounds great, right? Well, thinks aren’t always as perfect as we may want them to be. On the political spectrum, globalization and politics do not always mash up so well. In a paper by Susan Berger, she writes “globalization undermines the national state…not only by shrinking the resources under national control for shaping economic and social outcomes, but also by reducing the government’s legitimacy and authority in the eyes of the public.” There have been many instances that could back up this point. For example, President George W. Bush claimed a “War on Terror” in September of 2001. He was hit hard with criticism. In 2005, Bush came out with a statement stating another reason why America needs to fight this war in Iraq. He claimed that it was needed to “protect the country’s vast oil fields.” The Democrats denounced his war style claiming that “’President Bush has failed to put together a plan, so despite the bravery and sacrifice of our troops, we are not making the progress that we should be in Iraq. The troops, our allies, and the American people deserve better leadership from our commander in chief.’” The American people were beginning to lose faith in their leadership and the authority of the government was being weakened.    

“Globalization is not just an economic phenomenon, but a political, cultural, military, and environmental one as well. What distinguishes globalization today is the speed and volume of cross-border contacts. The challenge U.S. policymakers face today is to recognize that fundamental change in world politics and to use America's unrivaled military, economic, and political power to fashion an international environment conducive to its interests and values.”

In my final blog post, I will be looking at the mass communication trends  of convergence, interactivity, and new definitions. 

Sources Used:

-The Globalization of Politics: American Foreign Policy for a New Century-Brookings Institute, Ivo H. Daalder

-"Globalization and Politics" by Suzanne Berger

-"Bush gives new reason for Iraq War"- Associated Press

Are Donations Representative of the Average American?

       

          As I mentioned in my previous blog post, when the media associates a politician with a lot of money, the public tends to view the politician in a negative light. A lot of times, news reports will cover how much money a politician is spending on a campaign, which allows for the agenda setting theory to kick in. We discussed this theory in class and our textbook defines it as, “the media not telling people what to think, but telling them what to think about”. Especially during election years, the media puts the public’s focus on campaign spending and big donors.

            According to an essay by Brittany Bramlett et. al., “a small and extremely wealthy set of people fund American political campaigns”. This is problematic to the American public opinion because, “donors are highly unrepresentative of the public” and “the prevailing view-point in high-donor neighborhoods can be characterized as cosmopolitan and libertarian, rather than populist or moralistic”. A press release said Obama is focusing on raising money from his small donors. According to the press release, “Obama’s small donor fundraising in 2011 outpaces all of his Republican opponents combined”. While these donors may not be representative of the majority of the voters, since they are able to give again and again candidates tend to focus on them. 

            In the Youtube video below, it highlights different clips from various news channels discussing Mitt Romney’s need for more small donor support. Small donors are necessary to keep a campaign running and with all of the different medium to advertise a political campaign, it is costing more money to do so.

            Below is a graph showing how much Mitt Romney has increased his small donors fundraising throughout his campaign. Clearly, they have become an increasingly large part of the presidential campaign.

Sources:

Bramlett, B., Gimpel, J., & Lee, F. (2011). The Political Ecology of Opinion in Big-Donor Neighborhoods. Political Behavior, 33(4), 565-600. 

Campaign Finance Institute. "Small Donors in 2011: Obama's Were Big, Romney's Were Not.

Youtube video: Having a Small Donor Problem Mitt Romney?

HuffPost Politics - Small Donors to Mitt Romney's Campaign. Graph.

The Media of Mass Communication. John Vivian.

Campaigning with Media Theories: Agenda Setting, Two-Step Flow, and Ron Paul

The humorous video about Ron Paul embedded in this post could just show the typical press coverage third tier presidential candidates receive from mainstream media sources. That is one hypothesis, but it is possible it could also be seen as one example of a larger trend in the media today. The video contains videos from the different major television networks FOX, CNN, and MSNBC talking on similar points presenting a similar story. Is it just coincidence that all these separate major networks touch on the same themes? Is it just a coincidence they all choose to ignore poor Ron Paul?

Media theorists Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw would say it is more than just shear happenstance. They agreed that "The mass media force attention to certain issues. They build up public images of political images ofpolitical figures. They are constantly presenting objects suggesting whatindividuals in the mass should think about, know about, have feelings about."

In politics, the media theory of Agenda Setting (what McCombs and Shaw were describing) is not just an idea, it is a political reality. The name of the game is airtime; the more a candidate's name is out there, the better their chances of success in a campaign. If a candidate fails to get on the agenda, or fails to touch the political issues found on the agenda, then they might as well pack up and go home.  What is on the agenda, are the issues which people think are important.

One way fringe candidates attempt to gain publicity is through celebrity endorsements and media commentators. Think Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, and Rachel Maddow.

Oh, poor Ron Paul. Not the type of endorsement you want.


In an article published in the International Journal of Press/Politics it was found that endorsements from famous and influential people increases perceived viability as a candidate, perceived chances of winning, and more media exposure. This is study is similar to the Theory of Two Step Flow in communication. This theory states people's opinions are based on opinion leaders, not direct influence from the media. 


While these leaders are not necessarily famous (preachers, politicians, and community leaders) the fundamental relationship is the same. Opinion leaders hear about information, create their own opinions on the matter, express those opinions to their base of support, and those people become "opinion followers."


-Matthew Morris

Sources:

1. Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2747787?seq=2
2. International Journal of Press/Politics. http://hij.sagepub.com/content/13/4/386.abstract
3. Jon Stewart.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb5aGgQXhXo 
4. Weimann, Gabriel. (1994).
5. Stephen Colbert.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YX_c0Sa7oqk

Advertising Costs Big Buck$ for Political Campaigns

When most people think of politics one of the first things that comes to mind is money. In my portion of this blog, I'm going to discuss the economic foundations of media and politics. Politicians are often criticized for the amount of money they spend on their campaigns. During, political campaigns and election years, a large sum of money is spent on advertising alone. Just recently, The New York Times wrote an article about the criticisms Barack Obama was receiving due to the amount of time he was spending fund-raising for his 2012 presidential campaign. According to the article by Mark Landler, “Mr. Obama has attended 108 fund-raisers since filling his candidacy in April 2011, double the rate of George W. Bush at a similar point in his re-election campaign”.

Political cartoons often times are a great medium to show the public opinion on campaign spending. This one I found on CartoonStock successfully sends their message regarding campaign spending:

 Political cartoons seem to always appeal to the public opinion and this medium is popular because they do so in a humorous way. Another area of interest I found in my research is that during the primaries specifically, advertising costs are much more hefty. In a Washington Post article on the subject by Jack Gillum, he looked closely at the Republican Presidential Candidates to see how much money they were spending on ads during the primaries. Furthermore, he created a formula to determine the ad spending per each primary vote, only accounting for television advertisements. For Mitt Romney, the ad spending per vote was $12.70, Rick Santorum $3.01, Newt Gingrich $4.78, and Ron Paul $6.33. Clearly, Mitt Romney is focusing on getting his message out through the medium of television ads, which has always been a popular tactic among campaigns.

            An NPR segment focused on the amount of money candidates were spending in general on their campaigns in 2010 congressional elections and found it totaled to about $4 billion dollars.  In addition, they found that spending is up 80 percent from the last election, showing just how much they are trying to get their message out there to the public. As we’ve learned from class, there is a limit on the amount of money spent on campaigns put forth by the Federal Election Commission, but loopholes have been created to get the money that is necessary.

            Evidently, advertising has a huge impact on a campaign’s outcome, as well as its' wallet. In my upcoming blogposts I will discover the other economic aspects of politics in the mass media.

Sources:

Gillum, J. (2012, March 15). How ad spending among republican presidential candidates stacks up per vote. The Washington Post.

Landler, M. (2012, March 17). Obama faces criticism over time spent fund-raising. The New York Times.

Overby, P. , & Inskeep, S. (2010, November 2). Tracking the money spent on campaign ads. NPR.

Federal Elections Commission. www.fec.gov

Media as a Watchdog: Keeping the Government in Check

The media is often referred to as the “watchdog” of the government. It is taken for granted that the job of journalists and reporters is to monitor government actions and report them to the public with the intention of protecting and informing us. 

So, very obviously, it looks a little something like this:

or this: 

However, the usefulness and effectiveness of the media in this role is not as clear. In an article written by Warren Franke, he states that the only way to even partially understand medias role is by studying “the evolving institutional history of the press, including its control, ethics, laws, technology, organization, and the content of news stories.” 

But the government can also play a similar role in moderating what information can be distributed through different media. What I really want to discuss in the rest of my blogs is how the media can set agendas and frame issues. As well as how the government pushes back and censors media to a certain extent.

According to the Public Broadcasters Corporation, censorship can be defined in many different ways. In ancient times it was defined as assessing or opinion giving. 

However, in today’s world there is no single agreed upon definition so for the purposes of my posts I am going to define it very broadly as the “official restriction of any expression believed to threaten the political, social, or moral order.

The watchdog role of the media is often seen as a necessity to democracy and monitoring the behavior of government officials. I found this article to be very interesting and explanatory of how media, finances and the government are so interconnected.

While the many opportunities that technology like twitter, facebook – and yes even blogs - afford to journalists and politicians in getting information to the public, there are issues of credibility and transparency that deserve some thought.

Other Sources: 

Franke, Warren. The Evolving Watchdog: The Media’s Role in Government Ethics. 1995.