A New Form of News?

We are at a day in age where a large portion of the population chooses to get their political news and information from comical figures like Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert, and Bill Maher. These hosts gather high ranking political figures and interview and chat in a light-hearted way. However, there is still a lot of raw information being discussed and it is important not to write these TV shows off as they hold a lot of weight and validity in the political spectrum. Jeffrey Jones of Entertaining Politics writes, "citizens have forgotten the importance of social connection's and the benefits those connection's have in producing a rich democratic polity because we have divorced ourselves from each other through isolated acts of watching entertainment television.(p8) It is this strong connection with the viewer and the host that adds to having a more open and pure democratic relationship which is one of many important aspects in a healthy democratic system.

Regardless of ones feelings about receiving political news from these quirky comical hosts, the fact is that many citizens are watching these programs, so therefore the need to be taken seriously. It is fair to say that more people are watching Comedy Central, HBO, and MTV than C-SPAN. However, audiences of the political programs on these television channels must be fully aware that this information may and probably is biased and skewed. "For Neil Postman, the problem is epistemological-television is an inferior(even dangerous) means of knowing the arena of politics. Due to the technological biases of electronic communication(as opposed to his privileging the written word), television offers little more than amusement, entertaining and distracting because the medium is incapable of helping us think in another way."(p8) This critical outlook on televisions news process is certainly understandable and probably correct, however, the fact remains that people are STILL watching which can only leave room for improvement on the stations part. It is the responsibility of the hosts of these shows and the stations to provide reasonable information that will keep the viewer involved. In a New York Times Article, "Is Jon Stewart The Most Trusted Man in America?", the idea that these shows serve as a way of dealing and filtering with upsetting issues is key to not only their success but also what they're intentions are. If Jon Stewart is the most trusted man in America, what does that say about our actual politicians?

This ability to hone in on all of the audiences needs and wants are the real reason for the success of these programs. The perfect balance between humor, drama, raw information and criticism allows the reader to watch with an open mind and with an intent. An intent of not only getting informed about issues effecting the country but also enjoying yourself while you do it. This is why viewers keep coming back and why they will continue doing so in the future.

Sources:

Jones, Jeffrey. "Entertaining Politics: New Political Television and Civic Culture."

Lanham: Rowman and Littlefiel, 2005. 1-14

Kakutani, Michiko. "Is Jon Steware the Most Trusted Man in America?" New York Times. 15 August, 2008.

Comedy in Politics

It is now far from true that the main political television networks are the only place one can find politics on TV. Entertainment and comedic channels such as Comedy Central, Bravo, HBO and MTV are hosting some of the country’s most prominent political figures, and if they’re not hosting them, they are talking about them…a lot. In this week’s reading from Entertaining Politics, author Jeffrey Jones wrote, “Politics is now appearing on numerous and disparate channels and is packaged in a variety of formats and genres, including sitcoms, satires, parodies, town halls, roundtable discussion, talking head debates and viewer-participation programs” (5). Comedians like Jon Stewart are getting much of their material from politicians. Placing a comedic touch on current political topics often encourages people to become informed on what is going on in the country. Former ABC World News Tonight anchor Peter Jennings described this political comedic appeal. “Jon Stewart can enunciate important things about politics and politicians that the norms of objectivity won’t allow Jennings to say” (6).

A comedic approach to politics interests the public and presents political material in an engaging way. “Entertaining politics highlights the fact that politics can be pleasurable” (9). Audiences at home are interested in the entertainment aspect behind much of the drama of politics. I think an advantage to comedy in politics is that it can humanize the candidate and make them more relatable. But often the comedic side presented does not represent the candidate in the best light or as looking the most intelligent but it leads to recognition for the politicians or the issues being discussed.

Bill Maher, host of television show Politically Correct that aired on Comedy Central and current host of HBO’s show Real Time is a major contributor to entertainment politics. ABC News writer, Ryan Creed, covered a story on Maher’s most recent political dig. Maher’s name is currently associated with Delaware’s GOP U.S. Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell. It was on Maher’s show Politically Correct in 1999 where O’Donnell made a controversial statement that she “dabbled into witchcraft.” In September, Maher re-released this clip that media pundits are currently having a field day with. This comment that O’Donnell made has resurfaced and is now an ongoing issue she has to further explain to voters. She went about addressing her statements regarding witchcraft by airing a promotional advertisement where she states she is not a witch. (Video can be viewed at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGGAgljengs.) Political entertainment host Maher is trying to get O’Donnell back on his show to further explain her previous witchcraft statements, and he said he will continue to air this footage until she agrees to come on the show. "It's like a hostage crisis," Maher said. "Every week you don't show up, I'm going to throw another body out."

By reinstituting this embarrassing footage of O’Donnell, Maher’s role as a political comedic may very well affect the outcome of the U.S. Senate race in Delaware. Jones wrote, “Politics is increasingly crafted through and for media spectatorship, and hence the desired separation between media and politics no longer exists” (8). Clearly, an entertainment aspect to politics provides viewers with amusement, but do entertainment shows do anything for the policy aspect of politics? They are useful because they allow for the public to gain interest in politics and help viewers to have a general working knowledge of political topics, but to what extent do entertainment political shows inform the public on the important issues at hand? We have learned from Maher that years ago O’Donnell was involved in witchcraft, but what has Maher taught us about her policy issues? I think entertainment political shows are effective in the sense that they are amusing. They bring attention to main political topics but they require the viewer to either be somewhat informed already or to do further research. I find it a little scary that many people of our generation rely solely on this type of entertainment television as their main source of news rather than as a supplement to mainstream network news.

Sources:
Jones, Jeffrey. “Entertaining Politics: New Political Television and Civic Culture.” Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 2005. 1-14.

Creed, Ryan. “Maher Airs Christine O’Donnell ‘Witchcraft’ Video.” ABC News. 23 Oct 2010.
.

“Christine O’Donnell: I’m You.” You Tube. You Tube. 4 Oct 2010. Web. 23 Oct 2010.
.

No Substance, No Progress

In Chapter 4 of "The Image is Everything Presidency," Waterman discusses the issues of the "constant campaign" and how campaign tactics have changed over the years. One major change that occurred with the advent of television was the transition from advertisements based on substantive policy issues to "[simple] statements of unobjectionable platitudes." To many of us this is obvious, but as campaigns evolve with new technologies voters are becoming increasingly apathetic.

A recent article in the New York Times suggests growing volatility between midterm election candidates. This is nothing new, candidates have been fiercely attacking each other for years, but it would have been hard to comprehend 50 years ago just how ridiculous campaign ads would become. For instance, take what is perhaps one of the most absurd campaign ads of all time, republican senate candidate from Delaware Christine O'Donnell's assertion that she is not a witch. Watch it on youtube by clicking here. It is understandable that she would address public concerns about her image, but at no time does she specifically reference a policy or a method of carrying that policy out. Similarly candidates nationwide (from both parties) are deflecting attention away from their own stances by denouncing their opponents; "Sometimes that ferocity takes the form of discrediting their rivals’ backgrounds....Other times it involves linking their opponents’ policy agendas to objects of their constituents’ fear" (Harwood). Either way we are left with little knowledge of the candidate being spoken for and often misleading information about their opponents. So the question is who are we really voting for?

What is even more disconcerting is Waterman's reference to pre-television campaigns. It is clear that the average modern day voter votes on image over substance, but past campaigns were perpetuated by supporters and newspapers with little involvement by the candidates themselves. Have we ever truly known the candidate we vote for? Before television, citizens simply relied on others to tell them who their candidates were and when television finally came about we decided to choose our leaders based on those who made the best aesthetic impression and the least amount of verbal blunders. This is no way to choose a leader. As citizens we must demand greater accountability from our candidates. New methods of social networking and electronic media make it virtually impossible to keep the candidates of the future as vague as in the past, but in a time of such economic hardship can we afford to remain so misdirected and ill-informed? Next time you see a smear-ad or an ad where a candidate speaks about the generic "I will work to..." ask yourself, why, how, and what does that tell me about you?

Waterman, Richard W., Robert Wright, and Gilbert St. Clair. The Image-is-Everything Presidency: Dilemmas in American Leadership. Boulder: Westview Press, 1999.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/wielding-two-by-fours-instead-of-talking-points/?scp=4&sq=campaign%20advertisements&st=cse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxJyPsmEask

Paladino's Redemption

Unless you have been living under a rock for the past week, you have inevitably heard about Carl Paladino’s anti-gay rant and his overexposure to the media desperately trying to defend his actions. Paladino, the New York Republican candidate for governor, stated at a gathering in Brooklyn that he is fearful of homosexuals “brainwashing” today’s youth. From a YouTube video recording of the speech, Paladino’s exact words were:

“I just think my children and your children would be much better off and much more successful getting married and raising a family, and I don’t want them brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid and successful option — it isn’t,”

Paladino then went on to belittle his Democratic opponent, Andrew Cuomo, by informing the public that Cuomo marched in the gay pride parade this year (Paladino did not, obviously) and he feels that it is “not the example we should be showing our children.”

After the rest of the country and the media got wind of these seemingly homophobic remarks the Paladino camp went on serious damage control. Mr. Paladino went to nearly every New York media outlet in hopes to explain his actions, and in a very Obama-like fashion, his wife tried so soften her husband’s imagine. According to a New York Times article titled Another Paladino’s Views, Cathy Paladino admits to having different opinions on homosexuality and is upset that now the attention has shifted to his view on gay marriage. She states: “I just find it so disheartening that in the six months of this campaign we haven’t even talked about issues. And you have three weeks left and it’s not important to talk about. I don’t know. I don’t get it. It’s sad.”

Initially after reading that New York Times article I initially felt bad for Mrs. Paladino. But I had to do a double take after reading that last quote. The New York gubernatorial campaign has been six months long and they have not even talked about issues? What?! The Waterman book mentions that even presidential campaigns follow this “image before substance” tactic. “For a candidate to plan how he will actually govern following an election has indeed become something of an afterthought” (Waterman 75). It seems as though in any political race a candidate’s image outweighs his or her ability. The individuals working behind (and in front) the scenes are simply interested in just winning the contest.

Waterman, Richard W., Robert Wright, and Gilbert St. Clair. The Image-is-Everything Presidency: Dilemmas in American Leadership. Boulder: Westview Press, 1999.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKL9TRaePww

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/16/nyregion/16trailer.html?ref=carl_p_paladino

The Image is Everything Campaign

In the readings for this week Waterman discusses how “television created a new and unprecedented opportunity for candidates to construct a carefully honed image they could sell to voters”. It is undeniable to notice how the new precedent for media usage has led to even more innovative uses such as social mediums in current elections. President Obama used social networking as a means to get his message out as well as a way to acquire donations from his supporters. While those campaign strategies paid off for him in November of ’08, will they pay off again during the 2010 midterm elections?

In the article Obama Trots Out 2008 Slogans in Philadelphia Danny Yardon of the Wall Street Journal writes that “The White House has said Democrats' best chance at victory is getting likely Democratic voters who had voted for the first time in 2008 to vote again.” What is interesting is that while President Obama’s image faces a major change in approval ratings since he was inaugurated he has yet to alter his image of “hope” and “change” and is still expecting the exact same people to come out in 2010 as they did in 2008. However voter apathy is growing as some Democrats feel apathetic to the new elections and consider their no vote better than a vote at all. This voter apathy stems some major questions into why President Obama was elected in the first place. Waterman states” the result [of television created politicians] was primary and general election campaigns that did not emphasize Nixon [Obama, in this case] the man as he really was, but the presidential image that Nixon wanted to project”. These projections are now hurting President Obama as people question if what they voted for produced the results they expected.

Now that President Obama is using the same tactics used in previous elections to help Democrats win big in November, it will be attention-grabbing to see if it will work again for the benefit of the Democrats because despite President Obama’s low approval ratings he is still “able to attract large crowds”. In fact, even though President Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are being harped on by candidates from both sides of the aisle, they are both able to raise massive amounts of money for candidates that they support. According to an article by the New York Times since 2009, Pelosi has “raised $53.2 million” on behalf of Democratic incumbent candidates. Even though the new opportunities that television presented candidates then are quickly moving towards the internet, it is still noticeable how images that are crafted via television can still have a impact years after that politicians public image has changed.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703358504575545034080748828.html?mod=WSJ_Politics_LeftTopStories

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/us/politics/10pelosi.html?scp=2&sq=Pelosi&st=cse

Waterman, Richard W., Robert Wright, and Gilbert St. Clair. The Image-is-Everything Presidency: Dilemmas in American Leadership. Boulder: Westview Press, 1999.

Do Polls Steer Voters to Other Political Side?

The media has a large influence on how the public views political figures and policies. Polls that are conducted to examine potential campaign results reach many Americans. People do not like being told what to do, so the average American may want to go “against the grain” when it comes to voting the day of elections. According to an article on politicaldaily.com, a site branched from AOL news, Senior Correspondent Walter Shapiro writes, “Cosseted by the candidates and pampered by the pundits, these first-in-the-nation primary voters rebel against being taken for granted and revel in proving the dumbness of the conventional wisdom.” Shapiro argues that with the midterm elections coming up, the constant use of poll results and possible election outcomes in the media overwhelms voters. They no longer want to hear about how the elections will turn out, since they are the ones that help in making that decision. He believes “all this is prelude to an against-the-grain notion.” The American people become tired of hearing how they will most likely vote according to polls, so subconsciously they choose to do the opposite.

In Waterman’s book, “The Image is Everything Presidency,” he argues the use of paid political consultants and polls have helped to intensify the concept that image is more important in political campaigns than the candidate’s stance on an issue. “For much of our nation’s history the political parties played a major role in choosing the candidates who would represent them in the fall presidential election” (Waterman 76). However, modern day politics involves hiring campaign teams and the political parties are distanced from this process. This contributes to the idea that image becomes more important than the issues when candidates can only successfully get on the ballot with the help of media experts rather than their political party.

Political campaign teams work to create an image for the candidate that they are representing. Waterman states, “The outcome of the national convention…is now almost always decided well before the convention actually begins” (Waterman 76). He notes that presidential candidates begin running well before the election year. The image of a candidate is created and imprinted into the minds of the American people and they identify on different levels with the candidate. The public feels they know the person not just the policies. However, the problem occurs as Waterman notes, “when image is what wins the presidency” (Waterman 93). The images of politicians portrayed in the media through poll results and knowledge from pundits have become more apparent and voters use the image of a candidate to make their decision and do not factor in the issues.

Shapiro discusses the midterm elections stating, “the expectation of a GOP tidal wave is so ingrained in the media and politically sophisticated voters that it is easy to imagine the morning-after headlines.” The concept in politics of living in the future and always planning for what comes next gets old for Americans. The public hears from the press how a political situation will turn out, and then the opposite comes true. People become exhausted of hearing about the possible results and choose to do the opposite.

Shapiro argues, “what if some of these voters impetuously decide to rewrite their lines without telling the pollsters?” Reporters may lose credibility when their predictions are wrong. They do not intend to trick voters by reporting the facts they gathered, which can turn out to be the opposite of the results. The public must realize that political consultants are not all knowing and polls are not always accurate. I suppose we will have to wait and see if there are any surprises in the midterm elections.

Shapiro, Walter. “Is 2010 the Year Voters Turn Polls on Their Heads?” Politics Daily. 7 Oct. 2010. Web. 9 Oct. 2010. http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/10/07/is-2010-the-year-american-voters-turn-polls-on-their-heads.

Waterman, Richard W., Robert Wright, and Gilbert St. Clair. The Image-is-Everything Presidency: Dilemmas in American Leadership. Boulder: Westview Press, 1999.

Obama's Plan to Energize Voters

Recently President Obama has been expressing his displeasure with Democrats. Not Democrats on Capitol Hill but registered Democrat voters. At a number of speaking engagements and in interviews President Obama has been trying to energize youth voters who came out to support him in the general election of 2008.

"It is inexcusable for any Democrat or progressive right now to stand on the sidelines," the president declared in a Rolling Stone magazine interview. He said that supposed supporters who are "sitting on their hands complaining" are irresponsible because the consequences of Republican congressional victories could be dashed Democratic plans.”

This new aggressive tactic may not win over voters as easily as Obama is expecting. According to the Huffington Post “Several Democratic strategists privately fear that the strategy to motivate Democrats with sternness could backfire partly because it runs counter to Obama's carefully cultivated hopeful, uplifting image.” Personally, I agree. Being a registered Democrat, but also as a student of politics, I realize what is at stake in the upcoming elections. I also realize that it is important for the Obama administration to get voters to go to the polls and show their support. However, I don’t believe that the way to do that is by virtually yelling at people.

Another problem with this tactic is that Obama is appearing to put partisanship over policy. Rather than profile what issues the Democrats are supporting, and what policies risk being overturned if the GOP succeeds in taking seats away from Democrats in the House and Senate, he is merely asking voters to blindly vote based on the image of him, the President, as the leader of his party. And at the moment, this is not an image many people are looking to vote for.

Although this new approach could be considered Jacksonian in the sense that “Through direct appeals to the people, Jackson drew a connection with the common man” (Waterman, 24), Obama is going about this is a way which I feel will prove ineffective.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/28/obama-hits-democrats-ahea_n_741609.html

Image of Hope and Change Lost

In 2008 Barack Obama ran for president on the rallying cries of hope and change. He captured the nation’s attention with an array of promises, the big one being that he will fix the economy. At the time Obama represented the optimism that many Americans needed. Two years later that optimism is disappearing.

While Obama has made some significant accomplishments and changes during his time in the White House. In the Image-Is-Everything Presidency, Richard Waterman writes, “One of the primary problems with image politics is that images oftentimes do not reflect reality. Because they are related to perception and perceptions can change (57).” With Obama’s approval ratings dropping, it indicates that the perception of Obama has changed. Obama’s image no longer reflects hope and change, but rather failure and frustration largely because he has been unable to fulfill his biggest campaign promise, which was to fix the economy.

The Huffington Post posted an article with a video from John Stewart's The Daily Show that perfectly shows the difference in Obama in 2008 and Obama now. We watched the video in class, but this best contrasts Obama's image.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/21/stewart-obama-kryptonite_n_734227.html

The clip shows a very enthusiastic Obama in 2008, making promises and firing up crowds. It then cuts to clips over the past two years of a very frustrated Obama making excuses that Congress is being too difficult. Obama has also recently sunk to the point where he is bashing the Republican Party for all his road blocks. The American people do not want to see the president making excuses and blaming others. I think that Obama can restore his image if he stops making excuses, brings back the passion he had in the 2008 campaign and convince the American public that if they stick with him, things will get better.

Sources:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/21/stewart-obama-kryptonite_n_734227.html

Waterman, Richard W., Robert Wright, and Clair Gilbert K. St. "Historical Images." The Image-is-everything Presidency: Dilemmas in American Leadership. Boulder: Westview, 1999. 23-44. Print.

Obama Take His Offensive to GOP Country

           The article, Obama Take His Offensive to GOP Country, appeared in the Washington Post last Thursday.  Examining President Obama’s recent appearances in GOP states, the article looks at The President’s recent efforts to gain support of voters.  However, in my opinion, he has done the complete opposite. 

            Instead of gaining votes by addressing issues and concerns of the people, he more or less attacks the Republicans. According to the article, “the president dismissed Republicans as ‘not serious.’”  At a rally in Madison, Wis., on Tuesday night, of more than 20,000 people, “Obama accused the GOP of working to ‘hoodwink a whole bunch of folks all across the country’ about his governmental philosophy.”  As a republican, this would not be the to my vote.  Verbally attacking the whole Republican Party is pretty immature.  In fact, Obama went on to “twice sarcastically dismissed Republicans as not ‘interested in facts.’” 

            In regards to Obama’s disapproval, it was not a surprise that he made a statement about his lack of ability to please the American people. “At one point, responding to criticism that he hasn't done enough yet, he said, ‘I've only been here two years, guys. . . . I figured I needed to have something to do for the next couple of years.’”  In a response to this statement, I feel as though he isn’t taking the Presidency seriously.  Perhaps if he wasn’t so busy traveling and going on vacation every few weeks, the President would be able to make the necessary improvements needed in our country. 

            More or less, the overall point that I am trying to make is one that Waterman makes in the book, The Image-Is-Everything Presidency.  In chapter 5, Waterman addresses the uses of successful speech making.  In order to be successful, “presidents have to increasingly used speechmaking as a means of promoting their image and their popularity” (103).  With this said, one has to wonder, was this the idea that Obama had in mind when he was addressing the GOP states?  While this chapter also discusses the increasing popularity among presidents to give more speeches but not exactly address policy, I still don’t see the purpose in Obama’s direct attack.  He didn’t have to address policy; however, he could have given a more personal speech rather than one he gave.

sources: 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/29/AR2010092907795.html?wprss=rss_print/asection

Waterman, Richard W., Robert Wright, and Clair Gilbert K. St. "Historical Images." The Image-is-everything Presidency: Dilemmas in American Leadership. Boulder: Westview, 1999. 23-44. Print.