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? 

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.  

"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?  

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.