Monica’s Weblog
Just another WordPress.com weblogAll in the Family
Americans like to know that while politicians are interviewed by major publications and TV personalities, and meeting national and foreign leaders, that actually at the end of the day, they’re just like any other American. Remember that George W. Bush was favored in 2004 because many Americans said they felt like they could have a beer with him. They felt like he could relate to them on a personal level; he had that “likeability” factor.
What is interesting I think though is how the candidates are using their relationships with family members in their campaign strategy to connect with the everyday American.
Just go to Barack Obama’s campaign site and the splash introduction page – the first page you see before clicking to access of the actual site – is not a photo of himself alone looking particularly presidential; it is a photo of him and his family sitting on the ground in a park with his daughters around him and his wife next to him. It’s a sweet photo, and one that strikes that personal, and important note within all Americans – “family is important to me.”
He did have an interview with People Magazine about what life is like at home for him and his wife, raising their two young daughters in the spotlight, and “That even on the campaign trail, this is a brood almost like any other, with set routines (chores!), boundaries ($1 allowance!) and playtimes (movie nights!).” Again, showing that he’s just like you and your family.
On McCain’s site, he has some family photos (albeit most in black and white), but they are part of the photo gallery, not the first page. Family life is much different in the McCain household, so he won’t get interviews like that either. While McCain’s children are older and prefer to stay out of the limelight, his 23-year old daughter Meghan keeps a blog about following her dad and mom on the campaign trail. And relating to the younger crowd could help McCain; she says that she reads Perez Hilton and shops at Target. So, McCain’s daughter is really ike any other.
However, no other family member is dissected more by the media than the wives of McCain and Obama. After all, one of them will become the next First Lady. New polling discussed by the Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza interestingly shows that while Michelle is more widely known and present on her husband’s presidential campaign, she was also less favored than Cindy, who is less visible on her husband’s campaign. Americans polled who were unable to provide sufficient information about Cindy McCain still favored her over Michelle Obama (maybe it’s because of those comments she made earlier this year though…)
So apparently it’s ok for a little mystery…
I have not forgotten about the last family member – the baby (or babies)! Obama has mentioned that win or lose, he will get his daughters a puppy after the campaign (and you can (of course!) vote on the one you think they should get). However, if pets could vote, they’d vote for McCain. An AP-Yahoo! News poll “found that pet owners favor McCain over Obama 42 percent to 37 percent, with dog owners particularly in McCain’s corner.”
One of the survey respondents said, “I think a person who owns a pet is a more compassionate person — caring, giving, trustworthy. I like pet owners,” said Janet Taylor of Plymouth, Mass.
Taylor and others would probably feel comfortable with McCain considering he’s almost got a zoo, including: Sam the English springer spaniel, Yorkshire terriers Lucy and Desi, Coco the mutt, turtles Cuff and Link, Oreo the black and white cat, a ferret, three parakeets and a sea of saltwater fish.
Americans like to know that their politicians are just like them, being able to relate to them on a personal level. Everybody’s got a bit of wacky in the family – even the presidential candidates. And Americans want to know just how wacky the families are. (remember Rudy Giuliani’s family drama? Or the worry over Bill Clinton’s role in Hillary’s campaign?) It would be a mistake to underestimate the power the family has in how Americans determine who to vote for.
It’s all in the messaging again. Family matters.
You CAN Teach an Old Dog New Tricks!
Senator John McCain has infamously admitted that he does not use computers, because he does not know how to use them:
Yikes! But he’s just like any other grandpa in America, asking his grandkids what this Internet thing is all about and beginning every sentence with “when I was your age…”, right? Actually, not really. Plenty of old folks throughout the nation are connected online, depending on how you view the statistics (found from CNN article). Pew Internet Project at the Pew Research Center found that ”Only 35 percent of Americans over age 65 are online,” according to data compiled from April and May. “But when you account for factors like race, wealth and education, the picture changes dramatically. About three-quarters of white, college-educated men age over 65 use the Internet,” says Susannah Fox, director of the project. So when it comes to McCain, he’s actually out of the norm.
Seventy three percent of Americans use the Internet for the top three reasons: 1) e-mail, 2) informational searches, and 3) finding a map or driving directions. So since McCain has staff to do all of these things for him, what’s the big deal if he doesn’t use the Internet? Well while he doesn’t necessarily need to use it, it definitely doesn’t look too good. It puts him out of touch with the average American, almost making him seem like an alien. People spend hours online — for fun! If he can’t relate on a personal level, it’s harder to establish long-term relationships with Americans — which are vital in campaigns.
Since Florida is known as the retirement community of the nation, I was curious to find out what this demographic was doing online. One I liked, FloridaSeniors360, is “Designed to connect seniors and their families with resources when they need them most, the website also offers educational information on aging, common senior health care issues as well as retirement planning.” Life Done Right, a blog (reaching almost 10,000 people monthly, according to Quantcast), has postings ranging from topics like Florida seniors and the snowbirds hoping to become Florida residents, to living with Alzheimer’s disease, to whether George Clooney should keep his gray hair. AARP also has an online community, complete with blogs, videos, photos, and journals.
And just last week, the world’s oldest blogger passed away at 108. Although she had help typing, the stories came from her and she enjoyed connecting with people throughout the world (click here for her blog).
I’m not suggesting that McCain start logging in to check his personal Facebook page or start Twittering or blogging by the hour. I wouldn’t look for that in a President. I expect the President of the United States to be spending his time making important decisions for the good of the country. However, I do think that it’s important to be technologically savvy in this fast-paced technological world.
As Mike Rubbo (Ollie’s writer) asks, “So if a woman who left school in 1914, can embrace the internet in her 106th year, what is there you can’t do, friend?”
Woof to that!
The Media vs. McCain
In the games of politics and covering news, the media has been playing unfairly in its coverage of McCain.
MSNBC posted an article today asking the question: Is media playing fair in campaign coverage?
There is no denying, no hiding the fact that the media has been extremely biased towards Obama.
As Obama travels throughout the Middle East and Europe, three major news media outlets have sent their anchors (their superstar anchors!) to cover his activities and broadcast live the evening news from his destinations: CBS chief anchor Katie Couric, ABC’s Charles Gibson, and NBC’s Brian Williams.
Hey, and so who went along with McCain when he traveled overseas three times since March? Where was everybody then? Where’d everybody go?
Media Research Center reported that:
Sen. McCain went to Europe and the Middle East for a week in March, and the Big Three evening news programs had a total of only four full stories on the trip; one, by NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell, was dedicated to McCain mistakenly saying Iran is aiding al-Qaeda in Iraq. CBS did not even send a correspondent along, and offered only one report consisting of only thirty-one words the entire week Sen. McCain was abroad.
None of the three networks covered Sen. McCain’s trip to Canada in June at all.
The Project for Excellence in Journalism has found that there is indeed a discrepancy in the number of stories between Obama and McCain. “Every week, Obama played an important role in more than two-thirds of the stories. For July 7-13, for example, Obama was a significant presence in 77 percent of the stories while McCain was in 48 percent,” the PEJ said.
Of course the media denies this, and actually blames it on McCain – that he actually provoked it on himself and provided all the hoopla in the first place by challenging Obama to go overseas. On the Republican National Committee’s site, there was a “count-up” of how many days since Obama had visited Iraq. The ticker has stopped now at 925 days, 1 hour, 7 minutes, and 0 seconds.
Media Matters (which interestingly is a progressive research and information center “dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media”) has a listing of 699 stories that are proof of just how critical the media has been of John McCain. From omitting information and simply not allowing McCain to express his side or even excessively showing how McCain is attacking Obama, the media has obviously declared who they want the American public to pay attention to and remember at the voting booths.
Maybe it’s all because Obama is the new guy in town and everybody wants to know about him. But the media shouldn’t push aside the great things McCain is doing either.
Today, The New York Times rejected an opinion piece written by McCain as a rebuttal to a previous piece written by Obama last week. The piece was critiquing Obama’s Iraq strategy, arguing against an established time table for withdrawing troops. In an email sent to the McCain staff by a NY Times editor said that the piece was not “acceptable” as written, but looked forward to publishing one in the future. Here’s the rest of their side of the story. And according to the Drudge Report, here’s McCain’s original piece. We’ll see just how long it takes for McCain’s side to be presented and published.
So just because Obama is the newbie on the scene shouldn’t make McCain old news! Seems to me like the media should take a look at FOX News’ slogan: “Fair and Balanced… You Decide” and adapt it into their news stories. I’m sure they’d cringe at the thought of that.
Video Killed the Radio Star…
Video killed the radio star… and will kill television and its star too.
The Director of the e-campaign for the Republican National Committee, Cyrus Krohn visited class last week and discussed what the Republicans are doing online for McCain’s campaign.
Just on the homepage, there are various videos that visitors can watch, from McCain’s new ad to Obama’s Iraq Documentary. In its new Historic Online Platform, there are welcome videos from the RNC Chairman, and the Platform Chairman and Vice-Chairman. There is also a competition where participants submit a video answering the question, “Why are you a Republican in 2008?” Videos are also submitted through YouTube. Viewers then vote on their favorite, most creative video and the winner gets to go to the Convention and spend a day in the press pool and produce a video on the event – made for YouTube, not television.
The Democratic National Committee also has the same competition. (And I have to admit that Howard Dean has more personality than Mike Duncan!) (Also, on an interesting side note that I noticed, Dean mentions Obama by name, while Duncan does not mention nominating McCain by name).
The videos allow visitors to interact with the site on a different level – just like the music video did in 1981 on MTV. But even better, is that with the competition, it allows visitors to get involved and inspire others in their creative expression of why they are voting Republican in 2008. Instead of asking candidates their stance on the issues, the competition turns the tables on the voters, asking them their thoughts. It is this change that will hopefully not only bring new ideas and involvement in campaigns, but also a bit of fervor that seems to be missing (at least compared to Obama’s). It’s all about building relationships and dialogue, as Krohn mentioned.
And speaking of videos, the latest JibJab video is out! Time for Some Campaignin’ has been posted on various sites; I found it linked on MSN, Newsweek, among others. Friends also shared the link, making spread faster. While the content is definitely not serious, the video (and others on the site) brings humor to the 2008 campaign… besides, there’s a bit of truth in every joke, right?
So just as the video killed the radio star in the 80’s, I think the online video will only continue to grow and will also kill television. They will be used to bring communities together and facilitate the spreading of ideas… and a good laugh.
You Are What You Eat… Even in Politics
However, I didn’t know that my meals define me politically as well.
After reading Applebee’s America and the class articles, I’ve realized just how much I am judged based on what consumer products I buy, what activities I partake in, and even what I eat. I had no idea that by drinking Sprite, I could be labeled a Democrat. Or the fact that I like my Kashi GoLean cereal in the morning, I must be a die-hard Hilary Clinton fan? I don’t order stuffed crust pizza, and that’s apparently a biggie for McCain supporters.
In politics, it’s known as microtargeting. In Microtargeting, campaign staffers gather a bunch of data from targeted communities (such as what magazines you subscribe to, where you take vacations, what grocery products you buy, where you shop, etc) and use this coveted information to cater specific messaging that appeals to you. Polls are conducted on a wide variety of issues, matches are found among the group, and are then categorized based on those results. For example, the most passionate supporter against raising taxes might be a 40-year old man with college-bound children who likes to golf. As Chris Cilliza states, “Messages are then targeted to each individual segment; as a result, the issues you hear about also happen to be the ones you are most interested in.” By categorizing crucial voting blocs, campaigns can cater to their issues better.
The following graphic, from Wired magazine, illustrates how we cast our ballots, and how candidates use this information to determine potential voting blocs.
It’s all about the messaging and appealing to voters’ interests. “Anybody who’s in the business of persuading the public, which is corporate America and political America, must now share their message in a way that not only reaches people based on how they get their information but also reaches people in a way they like to get information,” said Ken Mehlman, Bush’s campaign manager in 2004 (Applebee’s America, 50)
I think it’s fascinating that these tidbits of information help campaigns resonate with the people and are able to garner the votes they need because of this. President Bush’s campaign in 2004 won with the help of microtargeting. By appealing to voters on issues that relate to them and by what they are most interested in, the candidate becomes just that – more relatable, and is viewed as someone who understands the people.
Obviously, these judgments are not concrete; they only show tendencies. “Besides, the lines between who eats what continues to blur. Republicans are not necessarily red-meat-eating bourbon swillers, and not all Democrats are carrying their lattes to the farmers’ market.” (New York Times article)
I do think these categorizations made by campaigns encourage stereotypes and as Cilliza mentioned, only makes campaigners tell you what you want to hear. If you’re the 40 year-old man hoping that taxes will decrease, they’ll tell you that. If not, you fit into another category. Maybe you’re passionate about global warming, and they’ll tell you that the polar ice caps won’t melt away, but only if you elect this candidate. When it comes down to it, you want those issues solved and the candidates want to get elected. And, while the campaign sends you a ton of mail about lowering taxes or saving the polar bears, it’s up to you to do your homework on the candidate… and eventually to vote or not to vote for him/her.
So take a sip of that Dr. Pepper, Republicans… or, if you’re Democrat, take a sip of that Sprite… and find out for yourselves which is the best candidate. And while you’re at it, shake things up a bit and switch beverages.
It’s all in the Messaging Mojo… and No Dirty Dancing
There has been a lot of coverage lately analyzing the McCain campaign in comparison to Obama’s — how he needs to fix that and change this and up the ante on everything. And as Obama’s campaign continues to gain support, McCain tries to march on and regain his “mojo” (as CNN called it).
What has made McCain so appealing is that he was known as the political “maverick” — not always adhering to party lines. Now he’s running for the presidency during a year that largely favors Democrats with an unpopular Republican president. Stu Rothenberg of The Rothenberg Report explains that ”He’s started to compromise his own brand … in this year when the Republican brand is so damaged, having a nominee like McCain with a maverick reputation is absolutely crucial. And to the extent that he loses that reputation, is seen as a cookie-cutter Republican, just a George Bush Republican, then his campaign is in trouble and his party’s in trouble.”
It is vital for McCain to step a bit away from the Bush talking points, while still managing to maintain the party’s base; it’s a very tricky dance.
As he tries to reinvent himself while paradoxically keeping some traditions, his messaging suffers. An article by Liz Sidoti, she states that it is this that is causing trouble. “The frustration is there’s no big theme around which to build a winning campaign,” said Steve Lombardo, a Republican pollster. “They need a big strategic message that will show the differences between the two campaigns, and allow for a win.”
Doug Stone discusses what he found out about McCain’s message compared to Obama’s: “At a communications seminar I attended recently, the speaker asked the 45 members of the audience what Sen. Barack Obama’s message was. Nearly everyone in the room repeated ‘change,’ or some variation. She then asked the same question about Sen. John McCain, who has been in Washington and around politics far longer than Obama. No one could say what his campaign message was.”
Paul West states that “John McCain once had the most powerful brand in American politics. He was often called the country’s most popular politician and widely admired for his independent streak. It wasn’t too many years ago that ‘maverick’ was the cliche of choice in describing him.”
What happened? The people now do not know how to identify him. “Old,” “experienced,” “patriot,” are among the labels used to identify McCain, but none of them anymore are “maverick” or “independent.” It’s the old guy versus the agent of change. The campaign needs to focus on the fact that he is capable of change and has an extensive record to prove it. People simply tend to remember things when it is repeated over and over again. So constant shifting in messaging won’t help, and obviously hasn’t helped.
Michael D. Shear and Juliet Eilperin quoted a Republican strategist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity saying, “I’m baffled that the McCain guys have somehow managed to take a guy who practically had ‘reform’ tattooed to his forehead and turned him into the bastion of the status quo.”
The campaign can’t seem to decide where to go, and this has been played out (as Shear and Eilperin describe) in the campaign’s changing slogans. “On June 3, a much-ridiculed green background behind McCain sported the new phrase ‘A Leader We Can Believe In,’ a play on Obama’s message of ‘Change We Can Believe In.’ But just a few days later the campaign had ditched that slogan and replaced it with ‘Reform. Prosperity. Peace.’”
It really seems to be this tricky dance of portraying himself as a “committed conservative one day and an independent-minded reformer the next” that is causing a lot of missteps.
In an article for the Wall Street Journal, Elizabeth Homes and Laura Meckler discuss the new campaign messaging strategy that McCain is taking on. He will continue his town hall meetings, interacting with the people. “It’s John McCain, it’s his brand,” strategist Charlie Black said. “The fact he is engaging with average citizens and with reporters is part of his brand.” It is also in contrast to Obama who, as mentioned in the article, rarely has such open-ended, informal meetings with the media, sticking instead to short news conferences or one-on-one interviews. The trouble here is that most of the questions asked in the town hall meetings overlap and rarely make headline news.
Building a brand takes time, and needs a solid messaging strategy to fully be influential. The hard part is that McCain is trying to incorporate a paradox of messages (that he is an agent of change, but also capable of retaining tradition) into one, which comes off as confusing. Plus, he’s dancing around distancing himself from an unpopular administration, while at the same time trying to appeal to that traditional conservative base. He needs to be the agent of change, while at the same time keeping those traditional conservative values. It is tough one, but there is no need to incorporate dirty politics. Just keep it real… real simple. 1, 2, 3… 1, 2, 3…
Journalist or Participating Citizen?
It has been debated that one does not need a journalism degree or work for a news organization to be a journalist. With the increase of citizens taking part in and writing news or blogging about it (and what is termed “citizen journalism”), the traditional view of journalism (and traditional journalists for that matter) is facing some competition and a real transformation.
CNN has incorporated citizen journalists’ reports into its website (albeit these journalists are not getting a salary for it). On its homepage there is an icon for its iReport section that that allows readers to upload their own stories, photos, and videos, and to participate in commentary. FOXNews Channel allows readers to upload a media clip on the website through uReport and allows them to designate which show and category it should appear on.
James Kotecki, who goes by EmergencyCheese on YouTube, has quickly become an influential political analyst online. By uploading political commentary videos on YouTube, he has been able to garner a substantial viewing base and has famously interviewed Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul last year in his Georgetown University dorm room, posting the video on YouTube. He now is working at Politico and is professionally doing what he was doing while still in college.
So now the questions are: Was Kotecki, prior to joining Politico, a journalist? What’s the difference between what he was doing in his dorm room and what Chris Matthews does on Hardball? Is there one?
As cliché as it is, I am still going to include the definition of a journalist according to Merriam-Webster: 1: (a) a person engaged in journalism; especially: a writer or editor for a news medium (b) a writer who aims at a mass audience 2: a person who keeps a journal
Based on this definition, Kotecki was definitely a journalist prior to joining Politico, even though the news medium that was being used (YouTube) is new to the news scene and is not a typical news source; it is still a medium where there is a writer/editor and an audience. Society’s view of a journalist however, is that of a traditional journalist – a reporter on the scene with breaking news, or a journalist in the studio reporting the news, or a political analyst engaging with politicians and newsmakers in a debate format. People can read this news in newspapers, magazines, watch it on television, and listen to it on the radio. These news organizations also have their own websites, but content is uploaded by the organization’s employees/journalists.
The difference between what Kotecki was doing in his dorm room and what Chris Matthews does on Hardball is that Matthews is getting paid for his political engagement and news, while Kotecki was doing it for fun and with less of a budget. There are also no commercials during Kotecki’s videos, while Matthews has to pause for a break. Other than this aspect, I think that the journalism is technically the same. Both are expressing political views and interviewing political newsmakers. The only thing that changes is the medium that reaches the audience. Matthews’ traditional television medium is able to reach thousands of people with cable; Kotecki’s videos are available to anyone with internet access around the world. It is a matter of reaching a particular audience through a particular medium. Both are engaged in journalism, aiming to reach a mass audience. A journalist is still called a journalist whether reporting the news for a newspaper or a television station. It is simply the medium that differs.
Because the media is changing and the way that we get our news is changing, so is journalism. Journalism is all around: radio, television, newspapers, magazines, and online. What also needs to evolve is the way that we define a journalist.
Update (7/9/08) - I’ve been thinking more about this idea and after Monday’s class and Kotecki’s answer to the question, I think that while bloggers are important and are changing journalism and are a kind of journalist, I think there are different levels of journalism. As Kotecki noted, there is a sense of responsibility with journalism – a responsibility in presenting the truth of the story to the audience. This made me think of tabloid writers – people read it, but no one takes it seriously; no one gets their official news from there. So while it is technically journalism (writers reaching an audience through a medium) there is less responsibility and thus less trust. Journalism is vital to any society, but there needs to be a responsible and free press.
