Blog 12: End of Class Evaluation
I write this post with ironic timing. Obama has just completed his speech about bin Laden’s death and the Twitterverse has exploded with speculation and excitement over the news. Fox News even jumped the gun and posted misspelled information to be above the action.
Political Communication 4473 has really made stop and realize how I get my news and on a night like tonight, I appreciate that insight. From receiving a text message to turn on CNN to immediately turning to Twitter as we awaited Obama’s speech, my world is full of new media interaction. This class has helped me appreciate that I live in 2011 and not 1960. I can choose which mediums I want to select for news (and have become a more active Daily Show viewer!).
As with many of my classmates, I agree that the most interesting part of the class was the coverage of the 1960’s campaign of Nixon v. Kennedy and The Selling of the President in the 1968 election. It was interesting to see how much television changed the political environment of the time. I had always heard about these debates, but to see them (especially on YouTube) was eye-opening. You really can see the difference between the two candidates – I appreciate that I know the history behind it and Nixon’s sickness and knee injuries. I feel like I can have more informed discussions. I am extremely interested in working on political campaigns someday and will keep my copy of The Selling of the President for a future career.
The least interesting part of the class would have to be reviewing the Graber book. I really liked all the articles, but when it was the only thing we did in class, it seemed repetitive and boring. I did appreciate when Professor Houston added YouTube clips, etc. to enhance the articles, but the days we left class early were boring. It was great to have a break (amidst all the craziness of this semester), but I appreciated when we went deeper into discussion beyond the articles in the books. Really, though, I have enjoyed this semester immensely. When I tweet now, I try and tweet with more purpose and newsworthiness! Thank you, Professor Houston!
Blog 9: Politics Online
My first thought when I read this blog topic was that, of course online politics are the same as “real life” politics. Politics are politics no matter where it’s shown, right? And aren’t we getting to the point where we’re just happy that people are interested in politics? Hear me out and I think I’ll be able to convince you otherwise, just like I was able to do in my own head!
This semester we’ve talked a lot about what goes into campaigning, from the Nixon election to the Obama election, and what is something that’s always seems to be evident? The whole idea of image perception. Now I know that these things can be construed through the internet, but not nearly as good as in real life. Think about a conversation that you have with someone on facebook chat and now think about a conversation that you had with the same person face to face. Completely different, huh? When things are portrayed online you miss out on expressions, tone of voice, and body language; all things that are extremely important when it comes to forming opinions of others. Another example would be online dating websites, that’s the same thing right? I wouldn’t ever be able to go off of a profile and picture alone when it comes to a relationship. There are just so many other factors that I take into consideration revolving around finding a partner, most of which can’t be displayed through an online website.
But what are the implications for politics online? The main thing that I can see is that there are so many sources for political information and if you aren’t highly informed on politics and just wanted to read up on something you could easily come across something on the internet that might not have any truth to it! Anyone can put information out there on the internet. Take a look at Wikipedia…when Matt Painter was being offered the head basketball coaching position here it Mizzou Wikipedia prematurely put it on his bio that he was already signed as the next head coach. Now if someone who knew nothing about the subject happened to stumble across his page and saw that they would assume that he was announced the
head coach, and then they would tell their friends, and their friends would tell their friends, and then a wildfire of false information has been created all because of a website that was wrong!
So politics online can be effective to a certain extent but there definitely has to be more to it. If something can be photo shopped to look like this then the limitations of online networking can be limitless, to a point of destruction!
Image is Everything
We’ve been talking about the presidential race between Nixon and Kennedy through our group presentations and we’ve been gaining an understanding of how important “image” was in the success of JFK and the failure of Nixon. After that election, dubbed by many historians as the “advent of the modern Presidential campaign,” the idea of image that would be presented over TV and other mediums would only become more important. In Joe McGinniss’ book, he basically illustrates Nixon’s journey to re-brand himself as a new man from the ’60 election to the ’68 election.
Idealistically, elections would be decided based on the heart of the man and the intentions of the leader, but in this shallow world, the realistic truth is that image is everything. What the public perceives is what their decision relies on, and candidates do everything in their power to control that image. As an student majoring in advertising, I’ve spent most of my time studying the communication of image, and I can understand the immense challenge that presidential hopefuls face in convincing a nation that they can lead. Candidates must focus on communicating specific feelings when addressing the public through TV or other mediums. I see the Obama election of 2008 as a great comparison to Nixon’s of 1968. Both candidates tried to promote feel-good ideas of unity as their core messages (among other things, obviously). Here are two ads from Nixon’s and Obama’s campaigns that were highly successful at establishing their message, and are also eerily similar to each other, both in underlying message and the images shown.
The packaging of a president has to be a unified effort. Both in the goal of the candidate to encourage the public to perceive him as a unifying figure, and in the overall consistency of the candidate’s campaign. Nixon’s efforts to achieve that consistent branding in order to change the public’s perception of him draw comparisons to modern election strategies. Nixon used a unified message based on the idea “Nixon’s the One,” and his campaign spread the idea through all possible channels. Similarly, Obama used his phrases such as “Hope” and “Change,” as well as his signature logo to unify his message.
Though the general unified goal of campaigns has remained relatively consistent over time, there are significant differences in the strategies. In Nixon’s time, there weren’t quite as many mediums through which to communicate. He could correct the mistakes he made with TV in 1960 and change the way he presented himself, but the overall goal of achieving strong message strategy could be covered by focusing on TV, radio, and print, among a few others. Today, candidates have to go through TV, internet, social media, radio, and print, among other mediums. Also, they must be able to navigate the maelstrom that is the 24-7 barrage of news coverage and analysis. In addition, I think the growing diversity of the country has changed the landscape of political communication entirely. Not only must they deliver their message in direct, specific ways, but they are also forced to tailor their message to every conceivable community that this country can create.
Overall, the core idea behind candidates’ campaign strategies has remained relatively consistent, but the ever changing world and the ever growing needs and demands of the public will consistently complicate the process of running for president. However, the political powers will be always vigilant in finding ways to communicate with the people. We can look back at the election of ’68 and wonder where the simplicity of those days went (knowing full well that the politicians of the time would not have felt them to be simple), while at the same time we realize that the essence of the presidential campaign will continue to remain a constant.
Blog 3: Presidential Campaigns
Since the Presidential campaigns of the 1960s, candidates have been using the media, specifically television, to get their message and their views out to the citizens of the United States. Some people, like Richard Nixon and more recently Sarah Palin, have had tougher times getting a positive message relayed to the public due to one problem or another.
For Nixon, the problem getting a good message across to the public was that he did not know how to properly use the television media. He hated using make up and wore suits that blended in with the backgrounds of the screen. In the book The $elling of the President, it shows how much Nixon is unsure of what to say in his television commercials and is always asking his media crew how to perfectly stand and look and speak to make sure the message he is trying to make gets done properly. His uneasiness with television shows when he does these commercials.
For Palin, her use of media became a negative for her as well in regards to her television interviews. One famous interview done with Katie Couric was a low point in her campaign in 2008. Having a better understanding of how to properly use the television media to get your message across and being confident in what you are trying to say would have helped Palin succeed in her interview with Couric.
In regards to what has changed since the 1960s, in my opinion, Presidential campaigns have predominantly used the media, specifically television, to launch ridiculous amounts of attack advertisements against their opponents. During election season, television commercials are littered with hatred of one candidate towards another. I feel as though candidates are shaping their campaigns now around attacking the opponent more instead of using their campaign to focus on what THEY can do and what THEY are wanting to achieve. Commercials, like the one below, have become a thing of the times and seem to always and forever be used in a campaign for any prospective elected official whether it be mayor or the President of the United States of America. I believe this change in campaigns to using the media to attack their opponent is getting out of hand and should be reduced.
BLOG 3 Changes in Political Campaigns
Since 1960’s election, the game of politics campaigns have changed forever. There is no doubt when Nixon and Kennedy had their first live televised debate, they were the catalyst to a new era of political campaigning. After reading the McGinniss book, I have noted similarities ad differences in Nixon’s campaign and the recent presidential campaigns.
Since 1960 election, television and controlling media became an essential part of political campaigning. This is one similarity one can find in common from both Nixon’s campaign and recent campaigns. Media is the most crucial element in order to win the election, because candidates can sell themselves through media such as television or radio by creating a public friendly presidential candidate, and ever since the invention of new type of campaigning, public image is everything in election.
In the past, presidential candidates would make a few visits to cities and then ride the policy of the party in order to be elected. Starting with John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon in 1960, less emphasis was put on party policies and more was put directly on the candidate as an individual.For the first time, American publics had the opportunity to become acquaintance with the candidates through television. Therefore people were no longer voting for a person they thought had a good platform but a person they thought a good person. This is still true in present, or more emphasized than ever before.
As for President Obama’s campaign, there was a lot of focus on his personality and temperance that try to make the public see him as a friendly and caring person, as well as a person who could get a great job done as a president.
However, there have been changes since Nixon. The creation of the internet, following with blogging and social networking has been a very important part of modern political campaigns. Like Television did, Internet brought new dimensions to how people perceive political campaigns. In 2008 election, President Obama’s utilization of internet highlighted and played a huge role bringing him a victory.
“The Internet has changed the game in this year’s US presidential election Campaign” – Former Democratic candidate John Edwards told New York Times after 2008 election.
The New York Times also has an article which compares Obama to Kennedy and shows the similarity between the two.
“One of the Many ways that the election of Barack Obama as a president has echoed that of John. F. Kennedy is his use of a new medium that will forever change politics. For Mr. Kennedy, it was Television. For Mr. Obama, it was the Internet”
Obama’s strategy of using the internet was especially effective to eliciting the younger generation’s attention. With majority of younger American generations, it was pleasing to see a young presidential candidate communicating to them via a medium which has become their everyday life.
What came across in my mind while I was reading the book and working on this post was that the modern era of political campaigning has become increasingly fast-paced, convenient and dynamic. It may seem as we are living in the height of the political campaign, but we certainly should expect for more innovations of political campaigns in the future election.
Blog 3: Campaigns from 1968 and on…
The presidential election of 1968 hinged on Richard Nixon being able to use the media to the best of his ability. The trend for that election had to do with marketing through the television. There was a great quote in the book The Selling of the President about the importance of television when it came to campaigning Richard Nixon, it went like this, “…Without television, Richard Nixon would not have a chance. He would not have a prayer of being elected because the press would not let him get through to the people. But because he is good on television he will get through despite the press…”
Now lets fast forward some 40 years to the last election where President Obama was elected. Television is still a great source for political campaigning but as the Internet generation moves into the 30-40 year old generation, the amount of time and money spent towards that area would also increase. To go along with this I found a quote from Arianna Huffington, editor in chief of the Huffington Post, emphasizing the importance that the Internet played in the Obama campaign. “Were it not for the Internet, Barack Obama would not be President. Were it not for the Internet, Barack Obama would not have been the nominee.” To take that even further candidates now have the advantage of free publicity through websites such as YouTube, Facebook and twitter. I think that the sky is the limit when it comes to getting a candidates name out through the Internet. In the last election twitter hadn’t quite come into the forefront yet. I would assume now that if there were a presidential election each candidate would have his own account that would be monitored by a group of people to make sure they got the message out the right way and to the right people. When researching this topic I ran across this website that broke down the marketing strategies within the Obama campaign.
Another way that campaigning has changed since the Nixon election is how the political parties treat the new outlet’s bias. To get around biases in the ’68 election it seemed to me as if they almost blackmailed reporters to make sure that they reported it by the facts. Nowadays there are so many biases that something like that just can’t be controlled. Fox is going to make their candidate look the way that they want and vice versa with CNN. But it if we go back some 40 years we learn that there just weren’t enough news stations that could do that sort of thing so everyone saw the same coverage and formed their opinions accordingly.
Along with that comes the citizen journalist. In 1968 where you got your news was pretty limited when it came to the different outlets. With the rise of the Internet, there are now millions of people throughout the country who want to make a name for themselves by writing the next big article. I wanted to test this out so I simply went to google and typed in “Obama election”, and lo and behold 44,500,000 results came back. These articles and opinion pieces range from well-known journalists all the way down to 3rd graders writing reports for school. Obviously this isn’t something that Nixon had to worry about but when it came to Obama, he did a tremendous job of winning over the citizen journalist. This video is of Obama speaking at the RTCA (Radio and Television Correspondents’ Association) dinner. Basically what he is doing is pumping up journalists, professional and citizen, in hopes that when they write something about him they think in positive terms.
On the other end of the spectrum the parallels between the advertising of a candidate in 1968 and now in 2011 are very significant and abundant. When you look at the television aspect of the campaigning the only changes come from how everything is portrayed, other than that things to be pretty similar.
The Nixon campaign revolutionized how candidates and their entourages dealt with advertising within the campaign. Nixon’s campaign manager went as far as to hire a firm to handle their marketing and television aspects. When we look now at how campaigning is handled it, the presidential campaigns don’t have to go out and hire an agency because they already have a whole division that specializes in marketing.
Obviously the 1968 campaign and election of Richard Nixon has changed the way that candidates put themselves out for the public. When it was finally realized how much image mattered to the voter, whether consciously or sub consciously, an enormous amount of emphasize was geared toward “selling the president”.