In this week’s reading in “President of the People” by Mel Larecy, the author writes on the topic of the presidential newspapers. The author wrote, “…every American president supported a newspaper that was regarded as at least the semiofficial voice of his administration (Larecy, 47).”
According to the author, there were no non-biased or non-partisan papers during the first half of the nineteenth century, in fact newspapers not only promoted a candidate, but were often loud in their advocacy of the candidate, or a specific political party. Larecy described presidential newspapers as, “newspapers established and heavily subsidized—via subscriptions from supporters and profits from lucrative government printing contracts- by the president to attack their opponents and announce and defend their public policy positions (Larevy 47).”
On Sunday mornings.], it’s common for politicians, whether candidates, retired, elected, or federal officials to make what is called the Sunday morning talk show circuit, to promote a certain message, whether their own or the one of their government. While some guests stay for only one show, it’s clear when the same secretary of a department is on the same 4 Sunday morning talk shows that there is an agenda and a statement that his or her department wants to get out, much the same way politicians have done in the past with their newspapers. Although many of these talk shows are not so black or white as to say they are in support of one candidate or another, there are at times cues to tell the viewer who the show is in favor of based on what guests they promote and those they do not show.
In this week’s “TV SoundOff: Sunday Talking Heads” by Jason Linkins on The Huffington Post, Linkins does an examination of the messages and guests on several of the Sunday shows.
Linkins wrote about Austan Goolsbee, the head of the Council on Economic Advisors. Goolsbee was on both Fox News Sunday, as well as This Week with Christiane Amanpour. On both of the shows, Goolsbee spoke about the current status of the economy, as well as unemployment.
Linkins wrote, “Unemployment is "going to stay high," Goolsbee says, continuing to de-Romer the White House message on the employment rate. He does say that the infrastructure package "could have significant" impact on employment, in a positive direction, but he wisely begs off making a prediction (see also: Romer, Christina).”
Linkins excerpt here was taken from “This Week with Christiane Amanpour,” however his same message was seen in “Fox News Sunday.”
‘’I think it's fair to say that...it's going to be a long battle." To get out of the recession -- which started in 2007! -- it's going to be a hard haul. Unemployment will be high for a long time to come. "I don't expect it to go down appreciably.’ And thus, your 2012 election season expectations are set!” Wrote Linkins.
The messages that Goolsbee is trying to get across in both shows are about unemployment and the economy, and it is apparent on both shows that Goolsbee was sent there with a message in mind that he wanted to get across. While neither of the shows that Goolsbee was on endorsed him or any idea he had the utilization of the Sunday Morning Talk show circuit to get a message across from the government is very similar to the government sending messages out to the public through the newspaper medium years ago as presented in Larecy.
I agree with Jennifer that television and newspapers use similar tactics as partisan papers. Political figures broadcast using the media to connect with supporters and inform them of a message. That message may deal with policies or promoting their personal or party’s image. Similar to partisan papers, topics are spun a certain way to target officials or support them. This creates a negative image of the political figure and/or the entire party, or creates support and positive publicity. Certain stations or newspapers are associated with being either Democratic or Republican. Although news should be unbiased, different views slip through the cracks. Audiences pay attention to one news station or read a certain publication over another, because their own personal political views match with the broadcaster or reporter.
ReplyDeleteHow different media outlets favor a certain party is seen in an article on Foxnews.com. The story is about President Obama giving his “Back to School” speech in Philadelphia. The article titled, “Obama Gets More Personal” focuses on how he incorporates his personal history into the speech. The lead sentence states, “…the president is reminding voters of his own challenges he faced in the past as the White House seeks to rally Democrats.” This has a negative connotation that Obama is using stories about his mother in his speeches so he will more “likeable” to the American public. It shows the readers that his speech had the motive to gain supporter. The article states “Republican strategists say this is a move by the White House to remind voters of the attributes that got Obama elected in the first place”. The public associates Fox News as a Republican news source; therefore, those watching or reading are most likely against Obama’s policies. An article online by the Washington Post, "In his second back-to-school speech, Obama urging youths to 'dream big'”, discusses the same event but looks at it with a different view. The lead sentence states, “President Obama plans to urge the nation's students to ‘dream big’ and ‘stay focused’ on education Tuesday in a low-key speech in Philadelphia described as a nonpolitical event.” The article states how the speech was not controversial like last year and did not deal with any politics. The article focuses on Obama’s message of a successful future for the students. The article praised the president and did not view this as a political technique to gain supporters. These two articles take different viewpoints on the same event - President Obama spoke at a high school. This is an example of stories written to agree with the political party affiliated with a news source. It is likely Democrats will favor the article in the Washington Post and Republicans will favor the article in FoxNews.com more.
Political figures do the “Sunday Talk Show Circuit” to gain supporters for their party. Television and the internet are two media outlets where political figures can reach mass audiences to gain support, whether it is for their policies or the image of themselves or the political party. Image has become very important for politicians to gain support. In the book, “President and the People” by Mel Laracey, the ways the president communicates to the masses is discussed. Before the nineteenth century presidents did not “go public” because that was not the norm. Thomas Jefferson altered the way Americans spoke to the public by using partisan papers and having policies in the newspapers and not just spoken to Congress (Laracey). Presenting issues directly to the public creates greater communication between the president and the people. However, the government and the media used newspapers to benefit their own party at the expense of others. Today “going public” allows for different media outlets to lean toward one political party or another. Once the masses have knowledge about politics, people create opinions and strong party affiliations by the media form.
-Valerie D’Angiolini
Here are the two articles:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/13/AR2010091306862.html
http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/09/14/president-obama-gets-more-personal
I also agree that the political usage of television and newspapers as well as the internet is very similar to the tactics used in the partisan papers in the early years of our government. I also find what incredible noteworthy what Valerie brought up about the various media outlets for political figures to “go public” though, and how the news should be objective but clearly different outlets lean towards different political sides. Thomas Jefferson believed that democratic ideas needed to be offered to the public, especially when the revolutionary war was still fresh in their minds and they did not want to slip into a monarchy. The best way to do this was to put the ideas in a newspaper, which is talked about on page 58 of Laracey’s Presidents and the People. Although the federalists were also getting their ideas out to the public through use of these newspapers, this utilization is key to democracy. Political figures should share ideas, debate ideas, and the public should have access to these ideas and come up with their own opinions. Now, we not only have newspapers but we have television and the internet. These are the ways that politicians will be able to voice their views, and the public can stay informed and decide what their own views will be. Another thing to consider, though, is exactly how informed the average person is. An engaged person might see multiple news sources, since they tend to lean to one side or the other, so they can get a more rounded view of different politicians’ ideas. However a lot of people probably stick to one news source, maybe because they are already inclined to have the same views, maybe their parents or other relatives chose it, or maybe they simply like it the best and don’t feel the need to seek other sources. This is important to consider not only because some people might believed they are well informed while they could be better informed, but also because information can travel so quickly in the age we live in, especially because of the internet. In Laracey, he points out that while the circulation of a newspaper might be at a certain number, in reality each newspaper is probably reaching up to thirty different people because it not only gets passed around physically, but the ideas get passed around by word of mouth (48). The same thing happens today, but on a much larger scale because of the internet. A single person can reach thousands of people by using social networking sites or posting a blog. More people can spread the ideas of political parties and even their own ideas. I believe we are starting to hear more about other political parties, other than republicans and democrats, because of the internet. An important thing that I think all citizens should consider, though, is that information can travel very fast these days and in order to have an accurate and well rounded idea of what is going on in politics, it is beneficial to consult multiple news sources.
ReplyDeleteAt the end of chapter three, Laracey talks about the demise of the presidential newspaper. He noted that although presidential newspapers were expensive to maintain, presidents had offset this cost by “steering lucrative government printing contracts to the publishers of their administration newspapers.” (pg. 97) However, with the creation of the U.S. Government Printing Office in 1860, the practice of subsidizing a personal administration newspaper was no longer continued.
ReplyDeleteOn the surface, it might seem like this change brought the media industry closer to a more free outlet. Without these contracts, the administrations no longer had influence over the newspaper industry. And without the presidential newspapers, the media industry could be seen as a more objective source. But as we’ve discussed, the media is not without bias in today’s society. The influence that the administrations once had, has now been replaced by the influence of the market. Media outlets seems to have a niche in the media markets, such as Fox attracting a more conservative audience and MSNBC appealing to a more liberal audience. So while these media outlets may not be vying for government contracts, they are susceptible to making decisions based on securing ratings. This is why many news outlets not only have straight news reports, but also have many commentary-based shows like the Sunday morning talk shows.
These aspects all contribute to how the media is influential in dictating the image of a president and the administration. Many media outlets still have a partisan bias, but no longer have any obligation to the president. Therefore, Presidents have since lost the ability to control their image in the media as effectively as before. This is definitely a contributing factor to the rise of a more ‘direct rhetorical presidency’. Rather than using traditional tactics that rely on the media to relay the president’s message, administrations have also begun to use more direct outlets -- such as the Obama Administration’s use of twitter and email to connect with constituents.
I very much agree with you in the fact that whenever Presidents make the talk show circuit, they are there with an agenda. Much like an author does the same thing to promote his up and coming book, Presidents or politicians will hit the Sunday morning talk show circuit. It is very interesting to see how much has changed and how little has changed in 200 years. Although specific news shows or talk shows don't support candidates, the candidates go on the shows to gain support from specific audiences. When Obama was on the view, he spoke in a specific way about certain topics just because he and his staff knew the audience they were trying to reach. If a candidate wants to try and gain women supporters, they will reach out to them by bringing up the right topics, like pro-choice or even the economy because that is so important to everybody today. By using the right mediums they can gather support from the right people.
ReplyDelete