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.