I've always been fascinated with politics. When I was younger, before I figured out I was gay and learned to enjoy the escape that partying afforded me, I felt that one day I would become either a lawyer or a politician. I've always had a sense of awe and wonder when watching the governing process as well as the political shenanigans play out.
So naturally I've noticed when politicians have said things that I found to be somewhat startling, untrue, or simply off the wall. This week's reading showed me just how clever some of our politicians have been in using just the right amount of racism when speaking to the public.
Because when a politician speaks about a policy issue that may be impacted by race, or when in which race can be used to the politician's advantage, it requires just the right amount of racial tinged comments.
Copious amounts of research has been done which shows that if a politician makes a comment that is overtly or explicitly racist, it will be far less effective for him or her. The reasoning behind this is that more people will clearly see the racist comment, and hopefully will be turned off by it.
But if a politician carefully hones the craft of effective communication, he or she can inject just enough racism into a comment so that it will go unnoticed by many people. However, the damage will be done. It will sink into our collective consciousness and active what is called racial priming. Racial priming will then activate people's already held racial predispositions. One can see how effectively a skilled politician could sway public opinion, policy, and the voters' choices by saying just a few select words in order to trigger this type of reaction amongst the people.
One of my earliest memories of something like this was Reagan's comments about "welfare queens." He was speaking of welfare fraud during his campaign and felt that there were many people living on government assistance and getting rich while doing so. Of course he never came out and said that he felt that it was African-American women he was referencing. But it was clear to me what he meant. But it wasn't quite bad enough to get him into hot water, nor was it bad enough to turn away the voters. For you see, he actually touched a nerve with many voters who believed it. His words tapped into their already previously held notions; they perceived African-American women as being lazy and far too reliant on government assistance and were gaming the system.
I could mention President Nixon and his "southern strategy" but that's just a bit too obvious. Or is it? Possibly not because it helped get him elected. But we can see that for what it really is, can't we?
A more recent example of racial priming occurred during the last Republican presidential primary debates. Newt Gingrich, while referencing our stalled economy, called President Obama the Food Stamp President. Now those on the left immediately saw the comment for what it was and pounced. However, there are a lot of Americans in the center and center-right that didn't catch Gingrich's somewhat veiled racist comment. For these people, his words sunk in and activated their previously held notions whereby African-Americans are linked to the food stamp assistance program. He tapped into their prejudices with a coded word.
Like I said in the beginning of this post, there have been countless studies done which prove that when these cues are heard, it triggers this reaction, this racial priming. I look forward to the day when politicians will no longer be able to prime the pump of racism for political gain. Don't you?
Thursday, November 21, 2013
Thursday, November 7, 2013
Why It's Okay That I'm Right and You're Wrong
Either I'm feeling far too cynical today, or Lewis Black has somehow inhabited my body, but I feel a bit of a rant coming on.
This week in Mass Media & Politics, one of the questions we were asked is do we think the mass media does a good job of enlightening voters and informing them about their electoral choices. Really? And no, I'm not being snarky about the question itself. It's a very valid question and one I can understand why my professor would ask.
What perplexes me is the idea of trying to honestly answer that without my own biases showing through. Of course my first gut reaction would be to say, "Sure, if everyone is watching MSNBC they're informed and on top of things. It's those dimwits at Fox and their viewers that are totally clueless."
Of course I can't really say that on our message boards. It wouldn't be very kind or diplomatic of me to do so. Nor would I want anyone calling me a dimwit. So, to my credit, I refrained. But the question still remains unanswered. Does the media do a good job?
One point that stuck out to me from our reading this week was from the Graber text. She points out that there is political and structural bias with regard to the substance of coverage done by media outlets. Really? Of course there is. But that initial first reaction is obviously just taking political bias into consideration. Let's look at what she termed structural bias.
"...structural bias reflects the circumstances of news production. Balanced reporting may be impossible when candidates' newsworthiness and willingness to talk to reporters vary or when their campaigns are linked to different issues. Structural bias, even though it lacks partisan motivation, nonetheless may profoundly affect people's perceptions about campaigns." Doris A. Graber
Well, there we go! Finally I have found my excuse for sitting back and laughing at Fox News and their coverage of candidates and the issues. It's not me, it's the candidates' campaigns and their links to the issues that causes by blood pressure to rise.
Yes, I understand that Ms. Graber is not judging the issues themselves, she is merely saying that some campaigns may be linked to issues that other campaigns are not linked to. But, holy smokes! Isn't that what politics is all about? The issues?
I had felt a Lewis Black rant coming on. One complete with a diatribe about Americans losing their ability to think clearly, their obsession with excess, and their ever-present need to win at any cost in the their zero-sum mentality of politics. But thankfully I've found an outlet, or maybe a scapegoat? I've learned that it's okay for me to know I'm right, and giggle at some candidates and what they espouse. It's not political bias on my part. It's merely the fact that their campaigns are linked to certain issues!
Oh, thank you, Ms. Graber! :)
This week in Mass Media & Politics, one of the questions we were asked is do we think the mass media does a good job of enlightening voters and informing them about their electoral choices. Really? And no, I'm not being snarky about the question itself. It's a very valid question and one I can understand why my professor would ask.
What perplexes me is the idea of trying to honestly answer that without my own biases showing through. Of course my first gut reaction would be to say, "Sure, if everyone is watching MSNBC they're informed and on top of things. It's those dimwits at Fox and their viewers that are totally clueless."
Of course I can't really say that on our message boards. It wouldn't be very kind or diplomatic of me to do so. Nor would I want anyone calling me a dimwit. So, to my credit, I refrained. But the question still remains unanswered. Does the media do a good job?
One point that stuck out to me from our reading this week was from the Graber text. She points out that there is political and structural bias with regard to the substance of coverage done by media outlets. Really? Of course there is. But that initial first reaction is obviously just taking political bias into consideration. Let's look at what she termed structural bias.
"...structural bias reflects the circumstances of news production. Balanced reporting may be impossible when candidates' newsworthiness and willingness to talk to reporters vary or when their campaigns are linked to different issues. Structural bias, even though it lacks partisan motivation, nonetheless may profoundly affect people's perceptions about campaigns." Doris A. Graber
Well, there we go! Finally I have found my excuse for sitting back and laughing at Fox News and their coverage of candidates and the issues. It's not me, it's the candidates' campaigns and their links to the issues that causes by blood pressure to rise.
Yes, I understand that Ms. Graber is not judging the issues themselves, she is merely saying that some campaigns may be linked to issues that other campaigns are not linked to. But, holy smokes! Isn't that what politics is all about? The issues?
I had felt a Lewis Black rant coming on. One complete with a diatribe about Americans losing their ability to think clearly, their obsession with excess, and their ever-present need to win at any cost in the their zero-sum mentality of politics. But thankfully I've found an outlet, or maybe a scapegoat? I've learned that it's okay for me to know I'm right, and giggle at some candidates and what they espouse. It's not political bias on my part. It's merely the fact that their campaigns are linked to certain issues!
Oh, thank you, Ms. Graber! :)
Sunday, October 27, 2013
Sniffing Out a Voter
In the past few decades, candidates' campaigns have become much more specialized and strategic in their quest to appeal to, and to find voters.
In the 1950s and 1960s, television was the only game in town. And this game only included three networks. Hence, campaigns' broadcast strategies focused almost all of their advertising dollars on buying air time linked to popular news and entertainment programs. Candidates, focusing on broad ideas and messages, were attempting to reach the masses through the use of advertising on the three major networks. It was a simpler strategy for a simpler time.
Things began changing though in the 1960s and 1970s with the advent of cable television. This led to narrowcasting whereby campaigns were able to buy air time on cable television programs and reach a slightly more targeted demographic. But their messages no longer had to be so generic. Now they were focusing on more specific groups and could hone their messages to fit the audience that was watching a more specialized cable television program. The target audience the candidates were reaching for was no longer in the millions, but the hundreds of thousands. By having a smaller, and more targeted audience, the candidates were able to be more specific with their messages which led to more acrimonious and sensationalistic advertising. Does anyone remember the despicable Willie Horton ads that Bush 41 ran?
With the advent of the internet, the 1990s and 2000s ushered in an age whereby candidates could now focus their advertising dollars on ads linked to websites search engines. Microcasting had been born. With this new change, campaigns were attempting to reach a smaller and more refined demographic of tens of thousands of citizens. This honing in on your specific target audience allowed the heated rhetoric and campaign assassinations to get into full swing.
But today, candidates have the opportunity to reach an even smaller, more targeted demographic thanks to the rise in social media. This is called nanocasting. Now candidates' ads can target more refined demographic audiences, down to a single voter. I myself was targeted by the Obama campaign in 2012.
One day last year I opened up the FaceBook app on my iPad and there was a message from President Obama's campaign team. It listed the friends I had in my friends list that lived in states that allowed early voting. The message asked me to remind my friends to vote early, and of course for President Obama. Given the new digital age in which we live, with citizens already worried about the NSA and what information they are tracking, I must say I find this type of advertising or outreach more than a little unsettling. It makes me feel that my own little sphere of private space is slowly but surely continually being chipped away. However, it is an ingenious way to reach out to voters that are within your desired demographic.
So what's next for campaign advertising? How much more refined can their outreach programs become? Do we have any space left which we can call our own? Certainly, with the advancements in technology, we have the potential to become much more informed citizens and voters. But are we losing our personal space along the way?
In the 1950s and 1960s, television was the only game in town. And this game only included three networks. Hence, campaigns' broadcast strategies focused almost all of their advertising dollars on buying air time linked to popular news and entertainment programs. Candidates, focusing on broad ideas and messages, were attempting to reach the masses through the use of advertising on the three major networks. It was a simpler strategy for a simpler time.
Things began changing though in the 1960s and 1970s with the advent of cable television. This led to narrowcasting whereby campaigns were able to buy air time on cable television programs and reach a slightly more targeted demographic. But their messages no longer had to be so generic. Now they were focusing on more specific groups and could hone their messages to fit the audience that was watching a more specialized cable television program. The target audience the candidates were reaching for was no longer in the millions, but the hundreds of thousands. By having a smaller, and more targeted audience, the candidates were able to be more specific with their messages which led to more acrimonious and sensationalistic advertising. Does anyone remember the despicable Willie Horton ads that Bush 41 ran?
With the advent of the internet, the 1990s and 2000s ushered in an age whereby candidates could now focus their advertising dollars on ads linked to websites search engines. Microcasting had been born. With this new change, campaigns were attempting to reach a smaller and more refined demographic of tens of thousands of citizens. This honing in on your specific target audience allowed the heated rhetoric and campaign assassinations to get into full swing.
But today, candidates have the opportunity to reach an even smaller, more targeted demographic thanks to the rise in social media. This is called nanocasting. Now candidates' ads can target more refined demographic audiences, down to a single voter. I myself was targeted by the Obama campaign in 2012.
One day last year I opened up the FaceBook app on my iPad and there was a message from President Obama's campaign team. It listed the friends I had in my friends list that lived in states that allowed early voting. The message asked me to remind my friends to vote early, and of course for President Obama. Given the new digital age in which we live, with citizens already worried about the NSA and what information they are tracking, I must say I find this type of advertising or outreach more than a little unsettling. It makes me feel that my own little sphere of private space is slowly but surely continually being chipped away. However, it is an ingenious way to reach out to voters that are within your desired demographic.
So what's next for campaign advertising? How much more refined can their outreach programs become? Do we have any space left which we can call our own? Certainly, with the advancements in technology, we have the potential to become much more informed citizens and voters. But are we losing our personal space along the way?
Thursday, October 17, 2013
Media as a Tool, or Tool for the Media?
It's been a long day full of schoolwork, so possibly
my mind is a bit addled. But after
viewing Harvest of Shame, Triumph of the Will, and Why We Fight, I'd swear I can see a
similarity between all three films. Due
to bias, they're all propaganda.
With
Harvest of Shame, I was able to see
the great ER Murrow's last piece of special correspondence. It focused on the plight of the American
migrant worker during 1960. And I'm not
ashamed to admit that while viewing it, a tear or two or three quietly slipped
down my cheeks. Workers, both adults and
children alike, were crammed into trucks Auschwitz style en route to the next
farm to pick the growers' harvests. They
frequently had nowhere to sleep, and when they did, their beds were either made
of straw or had holes eaten into them by rats.
"Communities" in which they lived often only had one spigot
for water and no restrooms. What I saw
were people who were barely existing, but certainly not "living."
Throughout the entire piece, Murrow, in my opinion, was simply reporting on the
conditions under which these people lived.
He interviewed migrant workers as well as the prosperous growers. It was only until the last sixty seconds of
the episode that bias entered when he said, "The people you have seen have
the strength to harvest your fruit and vegetables. They do not have the strength to influence
legislation. Maybe we do." I'll never forget this particular piece of journalism.
It was compelling and informative. Yet,
it did show bias, and thus lands in the propaganda pile. But I don't necessarily think that's an awful
place to be, either.
The
Third Reich came marching back with Triumph
of the Will. Grand marches blared,
pastoral scenery swept by, and soldiers marched by, as I, the viewer, was
invited through the most spectacular use of propaganda, to witness in awe the
majesty that was Adolf Hitler. Wow, talk
about bias and misleading! I realize
that it's hard for me as an American to view this piece objectively. Hitler of course, is one of the greatest
evils ever visited upon man. But I think
the film served the purpose it was created for.
Germany had been ravaged during WWI.
And then they suffered their economic collapse during their runaway
inflation. They were completely and utterly
destroyed. I can see how a populace would look for a
virtual "savior" and want to feel pride in their country again. Triumph of the Will perfectly fit the
bill for what the evil Fuhrer wanted.
And
then I watched excerpts from Why We Fight.
There are some great films that were released during the latter half of the 1940s:
Miracle on 34th Street, Oliver Twist,
Little Women, Sunset Blvd., and especially All About Eve. I swear, if you've never seen that movie, do
so now! You'll never hear such quick wit
and incredibly timing. They just don't
write scripts like that anymore. But I
digress. There's one thing that always
seems to be a constant theme that runs through most of those films though. Everything is
very...."whitewashed"? You know, the real America is rarely showing
during films from that era. I somewhat
got that same feeling while watching Why
We Fight. Sure, the US was on the "right"
side during the war. Director Frank
Capra did a great job of letting us know why we needed to be in that fight
though. Most Americans at the time did not want us to get involved in what they
viewed as Europe's war. So Capra did as he was asked and produced a series of
short films aimed at gearing America up for war and bolstering our
confidence. Propaganda. But as I stated earlier, that's not always a
bad place to land.
So,
can the media be a useful and good tool, when it's being used by the
government? Or are we being tools
ourselves when we let the media deliver a message they know to be propaganda
and we "buy in?" Actually I'll answer yes to both questions. And I don't think that's such a horrible
arrangement.
Friday, October 11, 2013
"Managing" the news?
There are reports that show that over 75% of News Outlets' "hard news" coverage originates straight from the politicians. What in the world are we letting happen here? We all know that politicians live for the spin! They spin to advance their agendas, they spin to increase their public presence, they spin to increase their poll numbers and win re-election. Have our news stations become nothing more than washing machines permanently set on a spin cycle???
And just why is that percentage so high? Those same reports also indicate that only 1% of news coverage originates from actual investigative journalism. Really? One freaking percent? And you may ask, "Why is that?" From what we've learned in our Mass Media & Politics class, it is because the news outlets are concerned with the almighty dollar. They merge and acquire one another in the hopes of turning larger profits. They report on "soft news" a la Miley's twerking and skip the "hard news" that we need, in order to attract a wider audience and hold their attention. So we're missing out on the actual "news" in order for mega-news corporations to earn more profits! Nice, isn't it?
But I realize, reporters must let the politicians speak, and have sources of information by which they gain pertinent information to provide to the public. But why aren't the vast majority of the journalists REALLY questioning these reporters with the facts surrounding the issues? Case in point, the government shutdown and the looming debt ceiling crisis.
Every channel appears to be trotting out various members of Congress, who I'm sure have been told by their party leadership to stay on-point. They are all regurgitating the same quotes, the same statements! We are learning nothing if we keep letting the politicians and the news organizations continue to feed us this fodder! Well-crafted and coordinated sound bites have become our news, and it is harming our nation and doing a grave disservice to our citizens.
News organizations have become so dependent upon little five minutes capsules of coverage that they don't have time to really delve into the issues. The news has become so fragmented that it leaves not time for real questioning of the whirling dervishes, oops, the "spinning" politicians.
So where does this leave the American citizen who is wanting the news, wanting actual reporting free of the spin or at least news with a spin meter? We are left to our own devices. We are left to feel comfortable in watching or reading our favorite journalists and their work, but we must also seek out other outlets that do provide the context, the background surrounding the issues. You know, the FACTS. From former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they're not entitled to their own facts. So true. But today, we have to really SEARCH for those facts because the media and the politicians aren't providing them for us.
So it's up to us. It's our responsibility to search out the sources that will provide us with the facts, not just the opinions. I have Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes, and Jeremy Scahill.
Who do you have, and why?
And just why is that percentage so high? Those same reports also indicate that only 1% of news coverage originates from actual investigative journalism. Really? One freaking percent? And you may ask, "Why is that?" From what we've learned in our Mass Media & Politics class, it is because the news outlets are concerned with the almighty dollar. They merge and acquire one another in the hopes of turning larger profits. They report on "soft news" a la Miley's twerking and skip the "hard news" that we need, in order to attract a wider audience and hold their attention. So we're missing out on the actual "news" in order for mega-news corporations to earn more profits! Nice, isn't it?
But I realize, reporters must let the politicians speak, and have sources of information by which they gain pertinent information to provide to the public. But why aren't the vast majority of the journalists REALLY questioning these reporters with the facts surrounding the issues? Case in point, the government shutdown and the looming debt ceiling crisis.
Every channel appears to be trotting out various members of Congress, who I'm sure have been told by their party leadership to stay on-point. They are all regurgitating the same quotes, the same statements! We are learning nothing if we keep letting the politicians and the news organizations continue to feed us this fodder! Well-crafted and coordinated sound bites have become our news, and it is harming our nation and doing a grave disservice to our citizens.
News organizations have become so dependent upon little five minutes capsules of coverage that they don't have time to really delve into the issues. The news has become so fragmented that it leaves not time for real questioning of the whirling dervishes, oops, the "spinning" politicians.
So where does this leave the American citizen who is wanting the news, wanting actual reporting free of the spin or at least news with a spin meter? We are left to our own devices. We are left to feel comfortable in watching or reading our favorite journalists and their work, but we must also seek out other outlets that do provide the context, the background surrounding the issues. You know, the FACTS. From former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they're not entitled to their own facts. So true. But today, we have to really SEARCH for those facts because the media and the politicians aren't providing them for us.
So it's up to us. It's our responsibility to search out the sources that will provide us with the facts, not just the opinions. I have Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes, and Jeremy Scahill.
Who do you have, and why?
Friday, October 4, 2013
Need to Know?
This week we took a look at two very different scandals; the sadistic torture of detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison and massive release of classified materials by WikiLeaks. The conundrum being, how do you weigh the right of American citizens to know about highly controversial subject matter versus the interest of national security.
If you've read any of my posts before, you'll know that I'm not one to shy away from voicing my opinion, enjoying satire and irony, or stirring the proverbial pot. However, this seemingly irreconcilable dichotomy has me stumped. I can honestly say that I see both sides of the issues. And I can assure you, for an outspoken Progressive, this is a pleasant surprise! Sarcasm is fun too!
So with Abu Ghraib, we learned of the atrocities that were committed in our names during the Iraq War; a war that never should have begun and was a continuation of our ill-conceived Middle East policies. Certainly we deserved the right to know what happened in that prison, but at what cost? By releasing the photos depicting Iraqi men in shameful situations, did we exponentially increase the number of future jihadists, hell-bent on bringing down the "great satan?" Or was it a necessary exposure to the truth that we must bear at any cost so that we are prompted into demanding a revision of our combat engagement policies and hopefully regain our integrity on the international diplomatic stage?
The scandal involving WikiLeaks is somewhat similar but has a bit more of a focus on journalism. Like the Abu Ghraib scandal, information pertaining to war atrocities committed by our service members was released by WikiLeaks. With both scandals, the American public needed to learn the truth. But again, this truth may come at the same cost. Has the safety of our allies and sources been compromised by the releasing of this information? Have we further inflamed the hatred for America that many in the Middle East already feel for us?
So the question is where do we draw the line? Where do we say, "At this point, releasing any more information will serve no further good and only cause harm." Or is that even a statement that we should be willing to make. As compelling and fascinating as this situation is, and as much as it deserves an answer, I sadly have none.
If you've read any of my posts before, you'll know that I'm not one to shy away from voicing my opinion, enjoying satire and irony, or stirring the proverbial pot. However, this seemingly irreconcilable dichotomy has me stumped. I can honestly say that I see both sides of the issues. And I can assure you, for an outspoken Progressive, this is a pleasant surprise! Sarcasm is fun too!
So with Abu Ghraib, we learned of the atrocities that were committed in our names during the Iraq War; a war that never should have begun and was a continuation of our ill-conceived Middle East policies. Certainly we deserved the right to know what happened in that prison, but at what cost? By releasing the photos depicting Iraqi men in shameful situations, did we exponentially increase the number of future jihadists, hell-bent on bringing down the "great satan?" Or was it a necessary exposure to the truth that we must bear at any cost so that we are prompted into demanding a revision of our combat engagement policies and hopefully regain our integrity on the international diplomatic stage?
The scandal involving WikiLeaks is somewhat similar but has a bit more of a focus on journalism. Like the Abu Ghraib scandal, information pertaining to war atrocities committed by our service members was released by WikiLeaks. With both scandals, the American public needed to learn the truth. But again, this truth may come at the same cost. Has the safety of our allies and sources been compromised by the releasing of this information? Have we further inflamed the hatred for America that many in the Middle East already feel for us?
So the question is where do we draw the line? Where do we say, "At this point, releasing any more information will serve no further good and only cause harm." Or is that even a statement that we should be willing to make. As compelling and fascinating as this situation is, and as much as it deserves an answer, I sadly have none.
Thursday, September 26, 2013
Ave Maria or Ave Rachel Maddow?
This week in Mass Media & Politics, we focused on truth in reporting, gonzo journalism, manufactured consent and he said she said journalism. I'm no longer a Christian, but having grown up in an evangelical home, I've heard many times that, "the truth shall set you free!" So I'm posting a thank you today to Ms. Rachel Maddow for giving me my own set of rainbow colored truth wings and why that is so important.
Did you know that journalists have a code of ethics they are supposed to follow? I didn't. It covers everything from verifying the reliability of your sources, to giving a voice to the voiceless, as well as avoiding stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, sexual orientation, etc. Its five main goals are to:
1. Seek truth and report it.
2. Minimize harm.
3. Act independently
4. Be Accountable.
By my accounting, Ms. Maddow has certainly followed these guidelines while employed by MSNBC.
Another example of her journalistic integrity is that she refuses to fall back into the fake refuge of allowing he said she said arguments during her programming segments. Two opposing viewpoints may be expressed during her program and she does allow them equal time. However, she will call bulls*%t on a guest and present them with the facts when the situation calls for it. In this way, she lets her viewers know the facts, not just the spin from a guest, and doesn't leave her viewers having to guess at the truth. This is yet another reason why she is my favorite television journalist. I wish more journalists followed her lead.
So kudos to you, Ms. Maddow. Keep shining on.
Did you know that journalists have a code of ethics they are supposed to follow? I didn't. It covers everything from verifying the reliability of your sources, to giving a voice to the voiceless, as well as avoiding stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, sexual orientation, etc. Its five main goals are to:
1. Seek truth and report it.
2. Minimize harm.
3. Act independently
4. Be Accountable.
By my accounting, Ms. Maddow has certainly followed these guidelines while employed by MSNBC.
Another example of her journalistic integrity is that she refuses to fall back into the fake refuge of allowing he said she said arguments during her programming segments. Two opposing viewpoints may be expressed during her program and she does allow them equal time. However, she will call bulls*%t on a guest and present them with the facts when the situation calls for it. In this way, she lets her viewers know the facts, not just the spin from a guest, and doesn't leave her viewers having to guess at the truth. This is yet another reason why she is my favorite television journalist. I wish more journalists followed her lead.
So kudos to you, Ms. Maddow. Keep shining on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)