How Can (And Will) Media Shape the 2012 Election

If there is any doubt in your mind that the media can drastically influence an election, ask Hilary Clinton. We read in Game Change about how the media's skewering of her campaign took a huge emotion toll on her. I found this link, which was one of the many instances of the mainstream news jabbing her for crying on the campaign trail.

Am I saying that the media was solely responsible for Hilary losing to Obama in the primaries? Not at all. However, trying to ignore how much of a factor they were in the way her campaign shaped out cannot simply be ignored. The massive amount of crying coverage, in addition to other coverage that seemed endless in a bloody primary was an example of one of the many ways the media can dictate an election cycle.

Similar to the way we had to constantly see Hilary when the media was "taking her down" (her words), when Rick Perry makes a gaffe during a debate, we see it ad nauseum - It's not just on every news outlet through a seeming loop, it's a punchline on variety television for weeks later. Up until his dropping out of the race this Saturday, it seemed that you could not turn on a news station without getting some sort of update on Herman Cain's many woes, as well. Now that Gingrich is out in front of the GOP field, he seems to be the only thing CNN wants to talk about.

A presidential candidate is greeted by dozens of camera whenever they leave the protection of their homes or campaign buses. With this kind of intense coverage and a microphone on them 24/7, there are bound to be gaffes and bumps along the road that can cripple candidates. How does Rick Perry look in the polls after his month long smashing at the hands of the media? Candidates become punchlines in today's news coverage.

However, I'm sure some candidates would welcome overcoverage. Candidates like John Huntsman and especially Ron Paul feel they don't get enough coverage. Ron Paul was given less than two minutes during the most recent debate, and he spends nearly every moment he shows up on your television reminding you how the news media isn't willing to give him the time of day.


Paul was a serious contender during the Iowa straw poll, but has been consistently sliding further and further down the list in polls. He's gone from near the top to barely fetching 5 percent, and being considered the least "acceptable" Republican candidate by likely voters. Sharing the same percentage as Herman Cain.

How the news media chooses what it covers will continue to play a huge role in how this election plays out, and I wouldn't be surprised if another candidate gets slammed hard in the news media either before or during the early primary season (looking at you, Bachmann). It will continue to be interesting to see whether or not their headlines news covers the appropriate things (Such as Herman Cain's sex scandal) or if it will continue to look like unnecessary piling on, such as in the cases of Ron Paul and Rick Perry.

Cable News: How Much is Too Much?

The question we keep coming back to is how the 24-Hour News Cycle changes the dynamic of the news viewer. Do we get too much coverage? Do we get the right coverage? Do we get drastically different coverage based on which channel we watch? All are valid, interesting question every viewer has to ask themselves.

My big take away from four years of journalism school is that Cable News is just like any other news. Yes, we are oversaturated with news outlet. But, this can be a very good thing.

When news outlets have more competitors, it fosters two things: News consumers allowing their eyeballs dictate who succeeds and who fails, and news outlets are forced to do new and different things to attract said eyeballs.

In recent years, this has meant 24 hour news networks have skewed more toward the margins of the political spectrum and society than the middle, which could be a problem, sure. However, when the mainstream news media forces itself out to the margins, it leaves a gaping hole in the middle of every demographic that wants news.

The way those holes are being filled now are through countless niche sites that create a news buffet of sorts where the consumer is allowed to pick a sampling of news that best fit their interests. This creates a news environment where everyone who wants a specific sort of coverage to seek out the networks that best meet their needs.

This is called a "pull" news environment (as opposed to a "push" environment). Instead of the major networks only deciding what gets covered, there are so many producers of news that the viewer can get exactly what they want.

Does this mean the quality of each individual news service will degrade? This is possible, but it's up to each consumer to demand the best of their news service and abandon ship. Because of how many news producers there are, a news industry could not survive a situation where they lose readers for being dishonest. It's in their best interest to tell the truth.

So, while it is a little alarming that so often, mainstream news sites like Fox and MSNBC can be playing both sides of the fence - because that can obviously destroy the quality of their news coverage - it doesn't have to be. We can be our own editors and get mad enough to give the power to other news organizations to tell the story. And, if there's any one benefit from the digital revolution of news, it's that.

Analyzing the Political Blogosphere

Three of the biggest powerhouses in the political blogging community are DailyKOS, ThinkProgress and The Drudge Report. All three of these blogs not only have large readerships and influence in the community, but the also have something that a lot of blogs can't claim - access to the news makers in politics. This makes them the sort of standard bearers of blogging. Anyone who still believes that blogs aren't powerful news sources should just look at the waves these three make.

First, let's look at DailyKOS. The site has a simple look and offers the even more simple slogan: "News. Community. Action". Upon loading the site I am greeted by a front page with this image, titled Newt Blingrich:

Though this image takes a pot shot at Ginrich for his lavish spending a Tiffany's, the rest of the article goes into great depth about why Gingrich has curried such favor in the Republican primary in recent weeks. It's a fascinating read, and seems very balanced despite the author's seeming dislike of Republican politics. That's one of the things I like a lot about KOS: So often blogs are seen as cesspools as far as writing and story quality go, but they buck that trend with long pieces chock full of great writing.

Like I said before, I feel like they are a little slanted to the left, but I also feel like it's a lot like what Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have made the point - they would like to call things right down the line, but in recent years the right has been been far more outrageous, so their left-wing bias is really just a bad news bias and a focus on which side of the coin is going to get the bigger laughs. Then again, maybe that statement in and of itself reveals my left bias.

Since we did a "left" blog, let's move to a historically "right" blog - The Drudge Report. One of the first real political blogs, Drudge seems to reveal not only in their right-wing affiliation, but also in their web 0.5 lifestyle. Their site is still one of the most unsightly things you can find on the web. I'm sure they could easily afford a better layout, but they insist on a layout that looks like a cross between craigslist and the first website I made in 6th grade during a beginner's HTML class. Ugh.

As for what I like about them, there isn't much. The only thing I can really compliment them on is knowing and catering to their reader base. I'm sure the average reader of their site is on the upper end of 40 or 50-years-old, and it shows in their coverage. A ton of national news (their main page headline is about Russia and almost all of their stories appeal to a conservative news audience. They raise an interesting question when it comes to blogs - if you acknowledge your bias.

As for our last, ThinkProgress, everything from their loaded name, their attachment to the "liberal think-tank" Center for American Progress, and their focus on their hard focus on social justice issues that usually are playing ground for the Democrats, this smells like a liberal blog.

Then, upon looking at their coverage, it fits the mold. Stories about how Fox News may or may not be crazy, Mitt Romney being a flip-flopper and attacks of lobbyist funded initiatives for oil companies litter the front page. Like their two contemporaries: they know their audience, and they cater and sometimes downright pander to it.

All of this is fine. Because we exist in an era where a new news site seems to pop up every time we blink, it's perfectly okay if a lot of them are largely partisan muck. People are going to go to the sites that best speak to them, and sometimes the best way to do that is to use the partisan language they want to hear.

And, when these sort of sites get out of line and tell lies, there are hundreds of other blogs that will keep them in check to forward their own agenda. Is agenda based fact-checking and competition the most effective way to get the real truth in news? Not particularly, but it makes for a much more honest, robust environment than the contrary, that's for sure.

Herman Cain and The Money Behind Politics

I realized halfway through this blog post that the title could be misinterpreted, and I just wanted to make it clear that I intend to blog about two separate topics, Herman Cain and then the money behind politics, today.

Wow. What an ad that was. The dim lighting and the blatant shots of him forcing puffs from a cigarette make it seem like it's a deleted scene from a bad Tarantino rip-off. Add that to the conflicting attitudes of the commercial - with the dark dim lighting contradicting it's rallying the troops tone. And then that smile. Oh boy, that smile. I think Jon Stewart of the Daily Show fame hits the nail on the head with the splicing of that hilariously awful smile with new music.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/01/jon-stewart-herman-cain-sexual-harassment_n_1069217.html

As much as the ad is chock full of mistakes, I like it. It's typical Cain, who has been all in with bad ideas and fringe appeals throughout his candidacy. Cain embraces every aspect of his personality and policies as if they're any good as any other, and is a "take it or leave it" sort of candidate. So, while I think I might just like the ad because it's one step closer to blowing up his candidacy so I don't have to see him on my T.V., if people have already bought into the idea of Cain, they're going to eat this up with a spoon.

As far as political money, it was fascinating to read how easy it is for people to drastically influence the nature of politics. Reading about how a millionaire can just as easily funnel his money into a candidate without any accountability to it is downright baffling.

Finally, it doesn't surprise me that there isn't really a method to gauge how well political endorsements from publications help a candidate. While I think the average voter may think a publication can know more about a candidate in a given election, I think that they don't put a lot of clout in those endorsements. It seems like there's a lot of suspicion of newspapers, and a political endorsement probably does more to raise the idea that they are in the pocket of politics more than anything else.

Ads Ads Ads

Of the three ads presented (I'm not sure what happened with the Obama Ad, but it's pretty clearly not an Obama Ad, as stated in the video's description), I think Rick Perry's was the least effective. While Perry was clearly swinging for the fences in his ad, I think he hits a little too negative. Though we've been all to familiar through our reading of Game Change how bloody primaries can get, I don't think this one will carry hostility that is so present and divisive in Perry's ad. It's a little uncomfortable to watch it.

I actually liked Michelle Bachman's ad, but it was a little simple. It didn't wow me the way I feel like a presidential ad should. It felt more like she was running for reelection in the House or for a smaller office than president. It fairly clearly showcased her ideas and what some of her big griefs are with Obama, but it didn't do enough to make it seem like she was ready for the biggest office in the country.

I feel like Mitt Romney's ad was the most effective. Though it's more lengthy than you'd see on a T.V. spot (which goes into my idea that candidates should be focusing on the internet for ads, which I'll get into later in the post), it has a great focus and paints a tough picture while not being the gloom and doom that Perry's ad exudes. It also shows great poise and understanding of the issues at hand.

It seems almost a forgone conclusion that social media will play just as big, if not a bigger role in the 2012 election as it did in 2008. If this is the case, Twitter is incredibly savvy to begin selling out some advertising space, and how candidates use social media to connect with voters is going to be pivotal. I feel like younger voters and senior voters are already solid in their respective camps, and that the candidate that can best connect with voters aged 30-45, since these are the voters with the largest stock in the economy's success.

While T.V. advertising is still probably going to get the bulk of ad spending, it seems to be much more of a push strategy instead of a pull. When an ad is thrust at me as I am watching an episode of How I Met Your Mother, I am much less likely to be drawn to its message than if it gets shot at me from a Twitter account I follow and I have the option of clicking forward or ignoring it.

It will be exceptionally effective if a candidate can get their message to viral, somewhat like the way Obama did in 2008. We are much more likely to be interested in something if our friends are sharing it on a social media site. Obama already has a headstart with this, having his Obama for America canvassing team spread the word through Facebook through it's "I'm in" campaign. Though Obama may be hard to take down in this environment that seems so liberal friendly, the eventual GOP nominee would be making a gigantic mistake if they discount the low risk (fiscally, at least), high reward area of social media.