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.

Audiences? Trends? Voting? What is it all about?

Demassification. Concentration. Convergence. Interactivity. Globalization. What are these words you ask? Trends; trends found in mass communication. But what exactly do these words mean? Let’s start off by defining demassification since this will be a major part of my discussion. Demassification is defined as “media’s focus on narrower audience segments” (Vivian 11). The other trends listed above are pretty self-explanatory. In mass media, these types of trends are extremely important. They allow a company, or in my case, the political realm to become invested in their audience and gain the support needed to be sustained.

Let’s look at an example. In an article titled “The Uses of Polarization” by Thomas B. Edsall, he discusses that “a primary goal of a presidential campaign is to incrementally increase margins of support among volatile and persuadable demographic groups…" We can see that it is all about the audience and use of trends like demassification. In the online article he begins to explain the ethnic groups that the Republicans and Democrats tend to advertise towards.

In order for a candidate to gain the attention of the voter, several measures must be taken. There are about 3 that I can think of:

1)                   Pick a cause to support. 

2)                   Make said video or advertisement about the cause to draw in the voter.

3)                   Travel around the country trying to gain the respect and interest of as many

              voters as possible.

These steps seem appropriate, right? On YouTube you can find many

political ads that are linked to a certain "group" of voters. Let’s take a look at one: Can

you guess what "group" he is talking to?

      In an essay by David C. King, Associate Professor of Public Policy at Harvard University, he outlines “Congress, Polarization, and Fidelity to the Median Voter.” He describes the notions that politicians go through and makes known the difference between the stages of voting and the dedication of the politician to each voter in that stage. Does that make sense? Here is a better way to put it: “This paper tracks the relationship between a congressional district’s two-party competition and a member’s fidelity to voter interests.” According to the Clerk of the House of Representatives website, during the 2010 US Representatives Election the state of South Carolina had a total of 1,318,794 voters and the country total was 86,784,957 voters. No wonder trends such as demassification and concentration have to be used to gain the attention of such diverse and large audiences.

      In my next blog I will draw on the topic of globalization and interactivity in relation to the political spectrum. 

Sources Used:

The Media of Mass Communication by John Vivian

"Congress, Polarization, and Fidelity to the Median Voter" by David C. King

"The Uses of Polarization" by Thomas B. Edsall

Statistics of the Congressional Election of November 2, 2010 by the Clerk of the House of Representatives: Karen L. Haas

In trying to answer the question, “Does Media shape Politics, or do Politics shape Media?” we have to look at the purposes and functions of media in political context…

                The media informs.

                The media persuades.

                The media builds communities.

Without media, how would the public know what is going on in the world of politics? What are the issues? Who is ahead in the polls? 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. In 1776, Thomas Paine published Common Sense to inform his fellow soon-to-be-Americans about the misconduct of Britain. He used mass media to provide the public with information they did not have before. As Common Sense reached more readers, the informed population continued to grow. An exigency was established. A discourse began.  A community of support emerged, as well as a community of opposition.  One pamphlet catalyzed the fight for American independence. While, Paine used the pamphlet as his medium, today, we rely on newspaper, television, radio, internet, even posters and bumper stickers for information. 

About Us

Group #2 here! We just wanted to take a few minutes and tell all our viewers out there a little bit about us. If you did not already know, our blog is going to be about Media and Politics. Overtime, our group will explore and investigate many themes, trends, theories, and structures surrounding the media and politics. We hope to find through this research the answer to one overarching question: What has more influence: media on politics? Or politics on the media? 

Now, for an introduction from each member:

 My name is Carly Grieff and I am a current sophomore here at Furman University majoring in Communications. I am from Naples, Florida where I have spent most of my life. Here at Furman I am a member of the Furman Dance Company and the Outdoors Club among other things. Mass communications and media interests me because of its wide ranging impact on the lives of everyone globally. Here in this blog, I will be focusing on the economic foundations of the media and politics. 

My name is Matthew Morris, I am a Sophomore Political Science, and Communications double major from Anderson, SC. I am involved with Student Government, Wesley Fellowship, Beta Theta Pi, Furman University Hall Staff, and the Poinsett Project. I hope to pursue a career related to political communication upon graduation. In the blog, I will be focus on the theories among media and politics.

My name is Jordan Sandwick. I am a senior political science major from Saratoga Springs, New York. I am twenty-two years old. I am especially interested in third world/developing countries and I am hoping to work with a non-profit disaster relief organization after I graduate. I am going to be focusing on media effects on politics in the blog.

My name is Taylor Smelt and I am a sophomore here at Furman University. My interests are in business and communications. I was born and raised in Tampa, FL. Apart from my rigorous academic schedule, I am FRAD (Freshman Advisor) on Housing Staff and am a member of the Greek community. In the future, I hope to be a successful business woman, ideally working with teams of people for the good of the company. I will be focusing on trends in media and politics in this blog!

My name is Mary Beth Summerall and I am also a sophomore at Furman University. I am an LA born-southern raised-yankee hailing from Philadelphia, PA. I am double majoring in Communications and French. I have a passion for urban studies and community service outside of the classroom, and like Matthew, I hope to pursue a career in political communication come graduation. I will be focusing on the purposes and functions of media in politics.

 

We hope that you will enjoy our blog!