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