Unethical or good marketing strategy?

     Oscar Wilde said, "the truth is rarely pure and never simple".  Nowhere is this more true and verifiable than in the world of political communication.   I've been haunted by Wilde's observation ever since an encounter with an undergraduate student a couple of weeks ago.
     This semester I am a teaching intern at North Idaho College in Coeur d'Alene.  In this capacity, I have been shadowing eight different communications classes.  Three of those are sections of Comm 101, Intro to speech.  During the last two weeks, lectures and assignments have been leading to the last required speech, a persuasive one.  After the class lecture where Monroe's motivated sequence is presented and thoroughly discussed, a student came up to me and began an engaging discussion with the question, "Isn't using these tools manipulation of the audience, and isn't that unethical?"  
      Where, indeed, do we draw a distinction between persuasion and coercion, between marketing and manipulation, between truth and deception?  Where is the uncrossable line between truth and lie, between ethical and immoral?  I submit that there are no lines, only shadows.  Most students of communications would agree that ethical communication must have truth as a basis, but there is little consensus on the level of embellishment required to so totally distort "truth" as to render it into the category of manipulative distortion.  Most of us would also agree that motive is also a factor in separating the ethical from the unethical, but who determines the definition of a pure and moral motive?  This comes too close to the hotly debated topic of moral relativism. 
   These thoughts all creeped through my consciousness after seeing the latest campaign ad from GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney.  The ad includes footage President Obama wherein he states, "if we continue to talk about the economy, we will lose".   As a supporter of the Obama administration, my first reaction to this clip was one of disbelief.  In rapid succession, the following thoughts passed through my head:
-I can't believe he said that!.
-Why would he proclaim such a thing in front of a huge live audience?
-Is he giving up so soon?? 
-How about being a little more positive about the future, Mr. President! 
-If you don't believe in yourself, why should I believe in you?

This is the 60 second ad:

  Shortly after, I learned that the video clip was from 2007 and that the quoted section was not complete.  In fact, then candidate Obama was directly quoting a strategist from  the McCain campaign.  By failing to include the first 3 to 4 seconds of the oration, the Romney ad completely distorted the facts and the message that candidate Obama delivered.  Is this lying, or strategic cleverness?  Once I learned the dishonest manipulation of the President's words, the thoughts running through my head immediately changed.  No longer focusing on the words Obama spoke, but on the dirty tricks of the Romney campaign that produced the distortion.  Granted, the ad was not intended to persuade me, rather, it was more likely intended to plant a seed in the minds of the undecided and uncommitted potential voters that even the President knows that he can not win the next election. It is likely that a large number of the population of the target audience would see the ad, but not the revelation of the omission of context.  In that case, the ad would be quite successful and effective.
     The Romney campaign defends the ad by saying: 

"We were upfront about the content of the ad - we sent out e-mails, cited the quote in our press release, talked to reporters about it, etc," Gitcho said in an e-mail. "We were very upfront. We included that portion intentionally" (Reuters, 2011)

        If blatant deception is acceptable merely by acknowledging that it was used, then the fundamental requirements of a healthy democratic process are in serious jeopardy.  How easy it will become for anyone to say anything without repercussion if all that is necessary is to acknowledge that the statements, claims or quotations are false representations.  ThinkProgress created a mashup that demonstrates how easy it is to put false words in the mouths of candidates if the context of those words is totally ignored.  It is both humorous and disconcerting:

     In an essay by Baker and Martinson (2001), it is suggested that "advertisers and public relations practitioners act unethically if they utilize methods intended more to manipulate, exploit, or both, listeners and persuadees than to respect them. They act unethically because no professional persuasive communication effort is justified if it demonstrates disrespect for those to whom it is directed" (p. 158) .  Perhaps this is one key to judging the ethics of communication content.  Deliberate and blatant deception is disrespectful of the consumer of persuasive messages.  If the deception is discovered, we become angry, disillusioned and mistrustful of the source in part, because we know we deserve respect from those who have deceived us.  That political rhetoric has become exceedingly overt in pushing the extremes of truthfulness, is it any wonder that the body politic has lost faith in our governing institutions and political processes?

   Regardless of which academic model one chooses to subscribe, the concept of ethical communication is grounded in morality.  Morality is a product of culture and societal construction and therefore can never be black and white.  However, there are certain generally accepted rules of persuasion that should be followed, and when they are not it is up to us, the consumers, to call out the offenders and reject their tactics as unacceptable.  Truthfulness is but one test of communication ethics, but in my opinion is the foundation for all other ethical judgement.

References:
Baker, S., Martinson, D. (2001) The TARES test: Five Principles for ethical persuasion, Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 16 (2&3), 148-175
Pratkanis, A., Aronson, E. (2002) Age of Propaganda: The everyday use and abuse of persuasion, Henry Holt & Company, LLC. New York, NY
Politifact (2011) http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/nov/22/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-obama-said-if-we-keep-talking-abo/
Reuters (2011) http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/23/us-usa-campaign-romney-idUSTRE7AH2O020111123  ).
ThinkProgress (2011)  http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/11/22/374630/new-thinkprogress-ad-romney-says-let-us-just-raise-your-taxes-some-more/

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts...

     Last year the University of Maryland conducted a study of public opinion immediately after the 2010 midterm elections.  These elections were the first in the aftermath of the controversial Citizens United decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.  This decision cleared the way for corporations, unions, trade associations and political action committees to spend unlimited funds unrestricted  by accountability of any kind and outside of contributions to individual candidates.  The study sought to determine whether the American people, having been bombarded with unprecedented volume and intensity of electioneering communication, much of it of questionable veracity, perceived the information as reliable.  Another goal was to measure the prevalence of misinformation among the public as related to highly volatile campaign issues.
     The full report (found linked here) was disturbing on many levels.  In short, the report revealed a high degree of misinformation, inaccurate assumptions and false attributions among the public.  Though individuals who identified with the republican party were far more likely to be misinformed, democrats were also victims of misinformation concerning some topics aligned with issues that resonate with democrat ideology.  One of the most stunning revelations was the correlation between misinformation and the primary source of consuming news and information.
     The following is an excerpt from an article posted on Huffingtion Post by Jack Mirkinson on December 12, 2010 ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/17/fox-news-viewers-are-the-_n_798146.html ):

Overall, 90% of respondents said they felt they had heard false information being given to them during the 2010 election campaign. However, while consumers of just about every news outlet believed some information that was false, the study found that Fox News viewers, regardless of political information, were "significantly more likely" to believe that:

--Most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely)--Most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points)
--The economy is getting worse (26 points)
--Most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points)
--The stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points)
--Their own income taxes have gone up (14 points)
--The auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points)
--When TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points)
--And that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points)

In addition, the study said, increased viewership of Fox News led to increased belief in these false stories.

     The researchers did an exemplary job of impartially determining "the facts" defined as "the truth" against which to evaluate the survey responses.  They used panels of impartial and non-partisan economists undisputed by partisans on both sides, and clear indisputable documentation when possible.

     The Fox News organization, not unexpectedly, disputed the study findings.  However, they did so by attacking the credibility of the University of Maryland rather than attempting to dispute the methodology, assumptions or findings of the study.  Ironically, the attacks launched by Fox on UM were, in fact, based on distorted and false information (Mirkinson, 2011).

    Fast forwarding to last week, a poll  (full report linked here) conducted at New Jersey's Farleigh  Dickinson University in many ways confirmed the results by the University of Maryland a year ago.  The following excerpt from the Toronto Star quotes one of the researchers ( http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1090791 )

     The survey, conducted last month, found that people who watch Fox News, the most popular of the 24-hour cable news networks, were 18 percentage points less likely to know that Egyptians overthrew their government than those who watch no news at all, and 6 points less likely to know that Syrians have not yet overthrown their government than those who watch no news.
     “Because of the controls for partisanship, we know these results are not just driven by Republicans or other groups being more likely to watch Fox News … rather the results show us that there is something about watching Fox News that leads people to do worse on these questions than those who don’t watch any news at all,” Cassino stated in the conclusions.
He also told the Star that Fox News viewers are less likely to get news from elsewhere, given that Fox News “tends to be actually very good” at sowing distrust in other media.
     But Cassino again emphasized that none of the networks did a great job of informing its viewers. “These sorts of media sources don’t actually help people learn. They are not giving people the basic facts to makes informed decisions about politics,” he said.

      Revenue and profit motives, shareholder returns and political ideology have so distorted our media, that the mythical free press no longer exists.  What is more disturbing, is that the body politic have not yet recognized that they are being duped, manipulated and led to false conclusions.  In essence, people don't know what they don't know.  What will this lack of knowledge,depth, and understanding do to the relevance, competence and functional capability of our democracy?  Perhaps the last three years of political dysfunction within our elected institutions, and the increasingly radical leanings of our Supreme Court are an indication of the systematic deterioration of the fabric of our democracy.  As our democracy struggles, so does the very existence of our society and the dream of a humanitarian, socially responsible society where equality, tolerance, integrity and ethics are values shared and fought for by everyone.

Strategic Political Communication

     Last weekend, Chris Hayes, Editor at Large for The Nation magazine and host of a Saturday and Sunday morning political analysis and commentary show on MSNBC, uncovered an amazing story.  He had acquired a proposal memo written by a Washington D.C. lobbying and political consulting firm (CLGC) to the American Banking Association.  This memo clearly demonstrates the principles of the political messaging that Jeff Reading spoke of in our class last week:  strategy and execution.
     The memo carefully frames the the consequences that the Occupy Wall Street (OWS)  The subject of the proposal is the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement.  Whether the proposal was solicited by the client, or provided as a preemptive and opportunistic document by the consulting firm is unknown, and not really relevant.  What is important is the content of the document.  The memo authors present a coherent and persuasive case for establishing a plan and preparing the groundwork for a messaging campaign that could be launched on a moment's notice to counter the growing positive trend of public opinion toward OWS.  The fundamental elements of their plan "include: survey research and message testing, opposition research, targeted social media monitoring, coalition planning, and advertising creative and placement strategy development" (Clark, Lytle, et.al , 2011).
     Clearly, there is growing concern among conservatives and republican operatives that the OWS is gaining momentum, building an organization with goals and targets, and growing in support by mainstream Americans.  This seems to strike fear in the hearts of wall street firms from an image standpoint, but also from a fear that their Republican defenders may actually be turned against them by public support for OWS.  This memo proposes building a tool box of messaging tools that can be deployed at will by a coalition of Wall Street firms with the shared interest of stopping or minimizing the effectiveness of the OWS message.  They propose using opposition research to employ the narrative paradigm theory of persuasion (Dainton & Zelley, 2005) to turn public opinion against OWS.
     The plan is thorough, methodical and logical, but I sure hope it fails!  Somehow it just seems a bit slimey to me when the best strategy one has is to smear and discredit the other side.  Using negative story telling and embellishing potentially negative details to paint a mean and scary opponent rather than sell the merits of one's own position is reminiscent of "Swift Boating".  It may be legal and common in politics, but I question how ethical such political communication is.

A Copy of the proposal memo can be found here.

This is the breaking news segment from Up with Chris Hayes (approximately 5 minutes long)

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Reference:

Dainton, M., and Zelley, E. (2005) Applying communication theory for professional life: A practical introduction. New York, NY, Sage
Clark, S., Cranford, J., Lytle, G., and Gelgudig, S. (2011) Memo to: American Bankers Association. Washington D.C. Gelgudig & Cranford

Candidate Forum in a Small Town

     A couple of weeks ago I had the privilege of serving in the position of official time keeper for a local candidate forum.  Hosted by the North Idaho College Communications Department, the forum offered municipal candidates for Mayor and City Council of the city of Hayden to answer constituent questions and introduce themselves to the voters.   Though I do not live in the city of Hayden, and was not familiar with any of the candidates nor the politics of the city of Hayden, this was a great opportunity to observe direct political campaign communication with a relatively unbiased perspective.

     There were two mayoral candidates:  Nancy Lowery, who has served on the Hayden City Council for 12 years (3 terms), and the incumbent Ron McIntire, who has served as Mayor of Hayden for 3 terms (12 years).   From a messaging standpoint, I had trouble distinguishing between the two candidates.  Both candidates list growth and attracting new business as their highest priorities, followed by responsible use of tax payer funds.  Both candidates expressed a strong desire to strengthen ties between the City of Hayden and North Idaho College (NIC).  Lowery spoke of a desire for more transparency in city government, and more involvement by the council with the hiring of city employees.  McIntire acknowledged a very tough business environment, tight budgets and demonstrated a greater depth of knowledge of city affairs than did Lowery.  Lowery framed her messages with a very up-beat and positive outlook for the city.  McIntire, on the other hand, painted a bleak picture with hope for the future that I interpreted as a pragmatic approach.   McIntire used anecdotes and stories to illustrate his answers to questions.  For example, he expressed dismay at losing the competition for a Caterpillar distribution center to the Spokane West Plains area citing restrictions, regulations and Idaho’s right to work laws as contributors to losing the bid.  Several times McIntire jumped in when other candidates misrepresented facts about the city, or were unable to answer questions.  He was able to cleverly portray himself as the serious, informed, methodical and business oriented candidate.  Lowery, in contrast represented energy, passion and a desire to work hard.  It appears that “age and maturity” out performed “dedication, passion and energy” at the polls; McIntire won re-election with 65% of the vote.  However, only 23% of registered voters in Hayden turned out for this election.

     In addition to the mayoral candidates, there were two candidates for council member positions in attendance.  The candidate for council position 3,  Roger Sasterfiel, ran unopposed for his incumbent seat.  Like incumbent mayor McIntire, Saterfiel showed a strong knowledge of the city, the issues and a clear vision for the future of the city of Hayden.  Saterfiel is noted in the area as the long time Director of the Kootenai County Solid Waste Department.  His name and reputation are spotless, and he is highly respected for his vision, innovation and management skills.  It is no big surprize that he runs unopposed.  I doubt anyone would be able to easily unseat him in his position as Hayden city council president.
     Finally, only one of the two candidates for council position 1 participated in the forum.  A conspicuously empty chair with a name tent in front of it held center stage amid the rest of the candidates for the duration of the forum.  Probably not the best way to get noticed if you are running for a competitive position.  The other candidate, Tim Timmons was less than stellar in the first impression department IMHO.  He owns a local construction company and his campaign has been heavily funded by the local Reagan Republicans, even though these municipal elections are non-partisan.  He responded to several questions with false information that was amended by other candidates during the forum discussions.  For example, one question posed to the candidates concerned the lack of public transportation in Hayden, and whether the candidates would support efforts to introduce public transit in the city.  Mr. Timmons pretty much ruled out the option as too expensive for a small town whereas the other council candidates and both mayoral candidates noted that partnerships had been struck with CityLink.  CityLink is a free public transit bus funded primarily by the Coeur d'Alene Tribe,  that services the northern Idaho counties and does, indeed, serve Hayden.  Service is limited at this time, but all candidates except Timmons indicated strong support and hopes of extending service as funds are available and needs identified.  Timmons actually won the election for council seat 1 with 61% of the votes cast.

How important is the CW?

Independent Voters are Actually Closet Partisans

     It seems that much of our national politics is portrayed by journalists and media outlets framed in terms of the Washington "Conventional Wisdom" or  "Beltway CW".  Whatever the CW is, and wherever it comes from is somewhat of a mystery and the measurement of its accuracy subject to the opinion of pundits, pollsters and political satirists.  That being said, the CW always seems to have its thumb on the political moment and a level of expertise that guarantees top billing in media punditry.  However, it seems that a PEW research study released in May strongly suggests that only about 10% of voters are actually independent.  The balance, often referred to as "up for grabs", are thought to be non-partisans who will vote for a person or issue rather than a partisan ideological purpose.  In truth, the study shows that the vast majority of those who self-identify as independents are disaffected partisans.  Even more surprising in this study - on many issues, independents feel more strongly than do self-identified partisans.  The moral of the story:  to win independent voters, appeal to the partisan issues that motivate your ideological base and the independents will get off the couch and go vote.
     So, if the CW is truly so dramatically mistaken about the importance of "moderate independent voters" to a presidential election cycle, what else are they woefully wrong about?

You can take the man out of Hollywood, but ....

     You just can't take Hollywood out of the man.  Former President Reagan insisted that his daily briefings be delivered not by his advisors in person, not in written report format, but via video.  Last week the CIA de-classified an amazing amount of video production / security briefings that were prepared for President Reagan.  They are available for viewing on the CIA YouTube Channel.  Some of them are quite lengthy, but all are very interesting.  Some short clips were featured on a segment of the Rachel Maddow show last week also.  The segment is embedded below.
     From a communication standpoint, I find this amazing.  Reagan must have been a highly visual learner to have insisted that the CIA go to this extent to provide his briefings - complete with graphics and sound tracks with appropriate musical scores.  They do provide a clear record of the briefings, but I have to wonder how cleverly the CIA subtly used imagery and music along with the standard rhetorical word crafting to insure that their view of the briefing topics was portrayed.  Is is possible that the president was being shown the side of issues and events that would best benefit the agency agenda?   For example, in the first clip that Rachel shows, the moderator is saying "You and Mrs. Reagan will arrive in Moscow...", while the video is showing images of soldiers goose-stepping in front of a government building.  Later in the same clip, the moderator says they will be going to another city while showing footage of soldiers filling the screen, marching in parade formation.  Subtle?  Not so much.

Herman Cain "Lights Up" the Base

Republican Presidential candidate Herman Cain (former CEO of Godfather's Pizza) has released the most unusual campaign ad I have ever seen.  Though the ad is not entirely bad, it ends on a confusing note.  Featuring Cain's campaign manager, Mark Block, in a narrative about Cain and his ability to unite the country,  take the White House, and "take this country back" (whatever that means).  The oddity of the well filmed and well scripted video is not in the narrative, but in the fact that after Block speaks, the camera closes in on his face as he smokes a cigarette while the background vocals intone "I am America, one voice, united we stand" to a well orchestrated and catchy tune.  After a few seconds, the camera cuts to a closeup of Mr. Cain, who, over the course of about 8 seconds, gradually forms a smile to end the video. 



So, just what, exactly is the message that the campaign is trying to communicate with the "smoking man"?  Is he portraying rugged individualism, opposition to anti-smoking legislation, the X-Files, or just shilling for Phillip Morris (one of Cain's larger campaign donors).  I just don't get it.

The emotions of 1183

Initiative 1183 will be on the ballot in the State of Washington in November, 2011.  There has been a heavy saturation of television across the state with 30-second ad spots both in favor of the initiative and in opposition. Within a span of about 2 hours, I saw at least four of these on one cable channel during prime-time.  Both the opposition and the proponents seem to be desperate to build a strong case for their views, to the extent that their television spots are borderline with respect to accuracy of information presented.

According to BallotPedia.org , the main supporters of this initiative are large retailers (Costco, Safeway, Trader Joe's), and the main opposition to the initiative are unions, public safety associations, and alcoholic beverage distributors.  Both sides have framed the issue toward their supporters. 

Recurring themes reiterated in the "Yes" campaign include:

• Smaller Government (get the state out of the liquor sales business)
• Public Safety (more money will be channeled to local fire and police departments)
• Free Market Solution (prevent "state monopoly pricing)
• Lower cost (wholesale and retail price competition)

Recurring themes reiterated in the "No" Campaign include:

• Fair Competition (big box retailers would have an unfair advantage in selling liquor by bypassing distributors, small grocers would not be allowed to sell liquor, therefore would be at a disadvantage to fair market practices)
• Public Safety (privatization of liquor sales greatly expands access of alcohol to minors)
• Funneling profits to big corporations (deregulation of pricing would result in increased costs to consumers and small restaurants)

The following ads square off against each other, both starring public safety officials.  the opposition ad sspot emphasizes the fear of increased alcohol use by teens as a result of the sale of alcoholic beverages by retailers frequented by young people. 

This "Yes on 1183" ad also features public safety officials.  The focus of this ad is an appeal to the increase of revenue directly to public safety entities across the state.  The implication is that public safety organizations support this measure, whereas in truth, those appearing in the ad are mainly former officials and retired.  The ad is effective in raising doubt in the minds of viewers as to which side of the fence law enforcement and other public safety organizations sit.

This campaign has become so volatile that it has caught the attention of news organizations to unravel the untruths and misdirection, as evidenced by the following clip from King5 TV, Seattle.  Voters in Washington should really do their homework before voting on this measure.  There seems to be some unfair consequences resulting from an idea that is in the long run probably good for the state and its citizens. 

Lazy Journalism, or Deliberate Emotional Manipulation?

       The following article appeared in the Coeur d'Alene Press on October 12, 2011.  The article can be found at this web address:  http://www.cdapress.com/news/local_news/article_63451624-f527-11e0-ae6d-001cc4c002e0.html .  There is no posted author or by-line accompanying this article.  I have posted the full text of the article as it appeared in the paper at the bottom of this page.

When I read this article, I was so struck by how much that it did not say, that I decided to include it in my journal postings.  The article describes a meeting between a Priest lake couple and a group of United States Senators and representatives, including the two Idaho senators (Sen. Crapo and Sen. Risch), and one representative (Rep. Labrador).  The couple is  involved in a law suit against the EPA over disputed wetlands. The Sackett's case has been accepted by the Supreme Court for this term, and it appears that the Sackett's have fallen into a deep hole in the bureaucracy created by the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the agency rules written to implement and enforce the act.  However, this article provides no real information about the dispute, the CWA complaint, the EPA compliance order or why the Sacketts didn't just secure a permit or waiver from the Army Corps of Engineers prior to filling in the wetland portion of their lot. 

Even though the EPA rule may need to be revised, amended or removed in such cases, it does not mean that the agency itself is evil, unnecessary and unconstitutional.  This article clearly has one goal - to sway public opinion of the readers against any potential beneficial actions that the EPA may engage. Words such as "overzealous", "bullying", "victimize" used to describe the agency contribute to direct quotes by the elected officials who have both partisan and ideological opposition to the EPA and many other government regulatory agencies.

Somehow it seems wrong on so many levels to use the power of the press to push a partisan agenda in this way.  The Sackett's may very well be innocent of any wrong doing, caught up in inadequate or inappropriate agency rules, and deserve damages and an apology for their ordeal.  However, the Coeur d'Alene Press's failure to acknowledge that there are at least two sides to every story, and admit that there are valid reasons for the EPA to exist and protect the interests of all citizens in preserving clean air and water,  is an egregious and unethical use of  their persuasive power.  The subtle purpose of the article is clear when reading the last paragraph of the article.  Sen. Crapo and Sen. Risch are dilligently working on legislation that would severly limit the ability of all federal agencies to act, enforce and regulate everything from pesticide use to livestock manure.  It appears that this article is not intended to be informational or educational whatsoever, but merely propaganda for gaining constituent support for ideologically motivated federal legislation.

So much for a free press that abides by a code of journalistic ethics!

N. Idaho couple battle 'overzealous' EPA
Posted: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 4:08 pm
     Washington, D.C. - A Priest Lake couple is headed for the U.S. Supreme Court over a land use dispute with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that should have never occurred, according to Members of the Idaho Congressional Delegation. Mike and Chantell Sackett were  in Washington, D.C., today as part of a forum convened by Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) and attended by Idaho Senator Mike Crapo, Idaho Senator Jim Risch and Idaho Representative Raúl Labrador.

"This is what happens when an over-zealous federal agency would rather force compliance than give any consideration to private property rights, individual rights, basic decency or common sense," Crapo told the Sacketts. Crapo is a member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW), with oversight of the EPA. He said when Congress wrote the Clean Water Act, it was never intended to authorize actions against citizens such as those that the EPA has engaged in against the Sacketts. The EPA initiated an enforcement action against the Sacketts, paving the way to fine the couple up to $32,500 per day until they complied. In response, the Sacketts sued the EPA for violating their rights to due process under the U.S. Constitution.

"It's stunning to hear this kind of action is happening right here in America," said Risch. "It is critical that Americans understand that federal bureaucrats have gone well beyond their authority to keep our air and water clean. The legislative branch must reclaim its constitutional right to legislate and stop these abuses."

"Listening to the Sackett family tell their story today to Members of Congress was eye-opening," said Labrador. "Hearing their firsthand experience with a bullying federal agency that seems to be above the law is frustrating. I am hopeful that the Supreme Court will stand with them, and with the concept of due process enshrined in the Constitution to remind an overreaching bureaucracy that no agency, no matter how big, can run roughshod over the principles of law and order. I am optimistic that the Supreme Court will find that the EPA does not have the power to victimize private citizens as they have with the Sacketts."

The Delegation members say the Sackett case demonstrates why Congress must stay engaged because federal agencies and some members of Congress want to expand federal power over the rights of property owners and individuals. Last Congress, Crapo, Risch and other Senators blocked a bill from consideration that would have drastically expanded the scope of the Clean Water Act and provided legal authority to EPA to engage in the type of overreach seen in the Sackett case.

During the forum, the Sacketts emphasized their case is a violation of their Constitutional rights. "Can EPA take over your land, calling it ‘wetlands,' without meaningful, direct judicial review?" they said. "We believe property owners have a constitutional right to have their day in court and EPA has to be subject to the rule of law."

Crapo has joined with Risch and other Republican Senators on several separate bills that would
curtail further overreach by federal agencies. Similar efforts are underway in the House. The
legislation would stop the government from increasing regulations regarding farm pesticides, farm
dust and livestock manure.

Public Speaking at It's Finest

     A few weeks ago, President Obama delivered a speech to a joint session of the 112th Congress.  The President requested all television networks preempt their regular programming to carry this prime time event; which they did.  President Obama is a gifted orator and has been known to write many of his own speeches, at least he did prior to his election in 2008 (Newton-Small, 2008).  One of his most moving and memorable speeches was delivered during the presidential campaign in 2008.  That particular speech was lauded by many past presidential speech writers, pundits, and rhetorical scholars as perhaps one of the most brilliant speeches by a candidate in recent times - and Obama wrote it himself   (Draper, 2009). Even if he didn't write the bulk of this one, there is little doubt that he edited it and outlined the content, context, tone and style with which it was to be written. 

     This particular speech, I noticed, was different in tone than many of the President's speeches; though he was speaking to Congress; his words seemed more directed toward the American people.  It seemed he was attempting to persuade the body politic of three things:   First, this is a time of crisis and this bill is a critical part of the solution.  Second, this jobs bill contains measures that Republicans have suggested and supported in the past, and third, the citizens of the country need to help get it through Congress.

     Looking closely at the first point, the time and the place of delivery emphasize the critical and urgent nature of the message.  Joint sessions of Congress are typically requested by presidents (other than for the annual state of the union address, and special addresses by foreign heads of state) only when there is an urgent crisis or message the country needs to hear (U.S. Senate, 2011).  By calling for a joint session to deliver this speech, President Obama was clearly sending the message that this was an urgent condition that all Americans should pay serious attention to. The setting and full media coverage insured a commanding presence for the President with a formal backdrop, adding to the credibility of  his words and the serious nature of the message.  The tone of the speech was stronger, more direct and devoid of the professorial edge to which we have become accustomed from this President (Stripline, 2010).  Seventeen times within the speech, the emphatic plea to “pass this bill right away” in some variation was repeated, adding to the sense of urgency.

     President Obama’s words appealed to a sense of unity among the American people, reminiscing about times of national crisis when citizens banded together to solve problems and overcome grave danger.  No less than three times did he mention specifically democrats and republicans acting in bipartisan collaboration passing measures specifically included in the proposal he was unveiling.  Strikingly, a large part of the details included investment in national infrastructure such as building bridges, repairing schools and such, yet the word “infrastructure” was never mentioned.  Rather, he avoided specific words and language that might illicit emotional opposition.

     This speech is an excellent example of rhetorical mastery, utilizing words, phrases, metaphors and repetition to appeal to emotions and feelings of national unity, shared objectives and the moral imperatives of justice, equality and fairness. It was delivered with passion and empathy and just the right amount of immediacy to be effective without stirring fear or reticence.

References

Draper, R. (2009). How the race speech happened.  The Daily Dish, The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2009/10/how-the-race-speech-happened/195387/

Newton-Small, J. (2008). How Obama writes his speeches. TIME Magazine, Retrieved  from http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1837368,00.html

Stripline, J. (2010). News: Professor in chief.  Inside Higher Ed Retrieved  from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/02/10/obama

U.S. senate: Reference home > statistics & lists > joint sessions & meetings of congress (2011). Retrieved  from http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/four_column_table/Joint_Sessions.htm

Full text transcript of the speech can be found here:  http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63043.html

Thoughts on the "Media Game" and Interpretive Journalism

Full article discussed in this post can be found here:  http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol9/iss1/art1/   

Recently, an article by Shanto Iyengar of Stanford University caught my interest.  Iyengar is a widely respected communication and political science researcher considered to be a world leader in academic research of the relationships between politics and media, so when I see a publication with his name on it, my interest is usually piqued.
     The paper is an update to research conducted by Ansolabehere and Iyengar in 1993, analyzing the tension created between journalists and candidates caused by "clearly defined and conflicting objectives"(Iyengar, 2011, p.1). In the earlier study, Iyengar suggested that candidates were winning the game by suckering the press into spending precious air-time covering outrageous, inaccurate, distorted and outright libelous paid advertising.  Rather than successfully debunking and scandalizing false advertising, the news media were actually complicit in spreading the vitriolic content to a wider audience resulting in a greater incidence of intended effects.
      Since that study, Iyengar (2011) notes that journalistic campaign coverage has evolved into less actual reporting and more use of strategists, analysts and consultants to report on candidates strategies and tactics rather than policies, positions and issues.  The pressure of media ownership, marketing and the competition for sponsorship dollars further complicates the ability of journalists to be unbiased sources of information for the public - even when their intent is sincere.  The media act as handicappers covering horse races, focusing on opinion polls, gaffes, political ads, donors and dollars; relegating only a few seconds of air-time to the candidates and their issue positions (Kaid, 2008).  This trend, Iyengar (2011) calls "interpretive journalism".  Iyengar further notes evidence that candidates are learning to accept the media condition and apply creative solutions to "accomplish and end-run" (p.4).  Studying the 2008 Obama campaign has shown researchers that video sharing and social media have become effective methods of bypassing the media and taking the candidate message directly to the public.
     Iyengar (2011) concludes with the suggestion that such new forms of unmediated communication between candidates and the body politic give reason to hope of a better way of informing and engaging voters rather than depending upon journalists more motivated towards entertainment than issues.   Though voters are much more able to proactively seek and find information via the internet, how many of them will take time away from their otherwise busy lives to research each candidate, their positions and their track records?  Of course, some will, but who with what frequency and how thoroughly?  There is as much, or more misinformation promulgated through email and the internet concerning political races, candidates and policies as there is conveyed through television advertising.  Much of it is even more slanderous, libelous and opinion framed as to imply fact.
     In many ways the jury is still out on how political information is received and interpreted through the internet.  Discussion groups, for example have been studied extensively.  The behavior of participants has been observed and the how the social structures form has been studied.   Himelboim (2009) found that over long periods, participants will not directly benefit from the freedom of open and voluntary social interaction, rather, they will “create highly hierarchical social structures that counteract some of the key conditions for civil society…individuals are free to join a discussion, but within it, they are highly unequal in their ability to benefit" (Himelboim, 2009, p. 17).  Another micro-segment  of  digital information study deals strictly with the theory that free and open access to information will promote more knowledgeable citizens who will then become more civically engaged.  However, individuals may be influenced by personal bias in the information they acquire and how they interpret it.  Professor Paul Jones (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill), director of iblio.org, suggests the abundance of internet information allows greater selectivity of information by consumers.  “The trend is for opposing groups to isolate themselves behind virtual electronic walls.  Folks don’t want to interact with every stranger, but to keep in contact with their tribes" (Kammer, 2008).  Such digital isolation may fulfill the need to reduce uncertainty by strongly reinforcing existing beliefs, and if accessibility of information is linked in any way to improved civic knowledge, it is not visible from current statistics (PEW, 2007).
     Rather than a ray of hope that Iyengar sees in digital media communication, I see it as dangerous.  Perhaps the journalists have not yet learned how to be modern fact-checkers and watchdogs, but it seems a better option than completely free and unfiltered information streaming from the internet directly to the voter who will likely choose the source, tone and content that most closely fits with their ideology, thus reinforcing and validating their beliefs with absolutely no regard for the integrity or journalistic ethics of the author or publisher of the information.

References

Himelboim, I. (2009). Civil society and online political forums: Network analysis of 6 years of political and philosophical discussions in newsgroups. Conference Papers -- International Communication Association, , 1-27. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy.foley.gonzaga.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=45286716&site=ehost-live

 

Iyengar, S. (2011). The media game: New moves, old strategies. The Forum, 9(1, Art. 1), 1-1-6. 

Kaid, L. L. (Ed.). (2008). Handbook of political communication research. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. 

Kammer, J. (2008). Are online campaign efforts effective? Retrieved, 2010, from http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/07/09/20080709pop-campaign0709.html

 

Public knowledge of current affairs little changed by news and information revolutions: Summary of findings - pew research center for the people & the press. (2007). Retrieved from http://people-press.org/report/319/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-little-changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions