Obama vs. Romney

Who do we favor? Who cares! Let’s juice 'em out both!

    Dee Evans from the Huffington Post points out exactly how president Obama is currently portrayed in the mass media: „Whenever a bad news topic arises [...] Obama's face is plastered all over the news [...] But, when there is good news on the horizon...nothing.“ and that is exactly how media frame Obama. So the media set the agenda that any bad happenings in the USA connect (falsely and misleadingly) with Obama.

    The pro-Obama ad (see Daly Beast here for the ad) connects Mitt Romney and his raised budget with big-oil money, assuming that he is pulling one rope with Exxon, Chevron or BP. This statement is however week says Angelo Gore on iWatch News and I absolutely agree with him because this is a wage statement and is offending Obama’s opponent and framing Romney as an Oil-corporations-supporter. What is even more radical in this ad is the fact that Bill Clinton (testimonials) supports the whole agenda of the ad.

    This never ending put-him-in-the-worse-possible-light-race seems increasingly very important for the opposing site, doesn’t matter if news agencies, parties or even the candidates themselves play with negative ads, negative psychological or fear appeal, they negatively frame candidates and their intentions. Those mass media sets together can have a rather controversial effect on viewers. Along with TV  (still the most important tool in the elections) being the political cultivator of the viewer, voters are more likely to elect a candidate based on the image perception and not policy issues. Thus how media portrays a candidate might be more important than candidates job activities.

Through the eye of mass media

    A great blog I suggest to follow or at least to have a look at is The Daily Beast. Professional journalists like the British Andrew Sullivan (if there is anyone who is interested in Andrew Sullivan and his struggle to become an American citizen, click here for a great CNN interview with him) blog mostly about politics but also about other topics of public interest. The blog is very liberal, but definitely interesting if one wants to follow US American politics and see how blogs turn into a new source of complex news. The Daily Beast provides not only links to other media sources but has also great videos addressing current political issues raised by media like the Mommy Wars. Visit The Daily Beast here.

    The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times do a very good job in covering the current US elections and - although they might be amongst the news-journals that create those “agenda-setting” stories - they vividly illustrate and compare recent polls and happenings. I would recommend those websites to get a closer inside look into the world of mass media happenings around the 2012 US elections and how those mass media agencies  set the agenda that money is what’s important, so they frame the candidates by those results. Visit The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times.

    The third website I recommend is also a blog, written by colleagues, also graduating with a communications degree but in the United States. They did a great job in explaining how new media changed politics and they take the 2008 US elections as a basis for underlining their arguments. They talk about the increasingly important role of the internet, blogs and how the elections step into a new sphere and become more interactive throughout new media than ever before. Visit their New Media and Politics blog here.

    The CNN Freedom Project is what caught my attention last year and I followed this campaign not only because of my Media Law and Ethics course but also because I found CNN and all the supporters of The Freedom Project did a great job and contributed to a change. I therefore visited and explored their 2012 US Elections coverage and found their coverage also quite interesting and rich in information. Have a look at CNN’s 2012 US Elections coverage here.

Media & Politics....educational, have a look!

    Professor John Zaller’s from the University of California Los Angeles developed A Theory of Media Politics in 1999. It is a complex analysis of media and politics in America. The author presents very interesting arguments. Zaller’s work does not only examine the new coexistence of journalists, citizens and politicians before the turn of the millennium and how new media have changed interaction between politicians and voters, it also explains in detail how a variety of factors conduct and shape this coexistence: among them the changing society, the free market and the new era of journalism and PR. According to his theory,  

“A widely accepted view is that the rise of media politics has been associated with the rise of candidate-centered politics, which has in turn meant greater political instability and less political accountability.”.

    This argument underlines my opinion. I highly recommend reading Zaller’s theory for a broader understanding of changes in media and politics in the US over the last 60 years. Visit the UCLA site for the pdf file of Professor Zaller’s work right here.

Politics & Education Politics

    The second educational file is from Peter Dahlgren who is Professor of Media and Communications at the Lund University in Sweden. His discussion on The Internet, Public Spheres, and Political Communication: Dispersion and Deliberation published in 2005 is a great contribution to how politics and the new public sphere along with new media created a new dimension evolving since the last decade, where those elements interact and therefore create a new public sphere and new approach to politics.

“The Internet is at the forefront of the evolving public sphere, and if the dispersion of public spheres generally is contributing to the already destabilized political communication system, […] the Internet […] also allowing engaged citizens to play a role in the development of new democratic politics.”

    It is great reading and great educational material for those interested in Mediated Politics in depth as it covers not only detailed analysis of the new public sphere but also discusses how electronic communication becomes more and more important for politics and new generations. A link to Professor Dahlgren’s work in pdf file can be accessed here. 

need to know on PBS

Romney sponsored by: Exxon Mobil, GM, Ford, Wal-Mart, Chevron….

    I am referring quickly back to my earlier comments of my „It’s all about money...“ post. I would like to support my opinion with showing you how a new law which allows corporate companies to provide unlimited donations to a politician(s campaign) underlines the issue with the candidates and the budget.

    It rises concern about the fact that a candidate can be supported by a corporation which can actually only support him because the candidate empathizes the corporations ideas, goals or ideologies. This means that the only reasons why corporations might pull so much money into candidates are:

    They can use the candidate for their benefits by providing the candidate with money and therefore putting him in the „you owe me“ situation

    The amount can be so significant and helpful for the candidate that she or he will in the future depend on corporations which might abuse this need.

    In the future it will be easier for candidates to rise significant funds by favoring a corporate body the only thing they have to do is favor them in the public eye.

    Is this ethical? Because only big corporations can donate really big sums of money, so they outplay small donors, which in the future might not donate anymore, as they don’t see any outcomes for them…

It's all about money...

CNN Money

    „Obama bundlers raise at least $106M“, „Romney Posts Best Money Month Yet“ „Obama Sees Steep Dropoff in Cash From Major Donors“ are the current headings of USA’s biggest news companies: the USA Today, The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. Everything is about the never ending „horse-race“ between candidates, polls and budget details. They are analyzed, published and explained in detail. Who of the candidates raised the most money, by whom are they funded, how are they raising money, how are they spending it? Those are the questions media sets as an agenda today. It seems like becoming president depends on who appears in US media most often, who has the most powerful impression on voters and who has the best overall appearance in media.

    It is therefore not surprising that Mitt Romney became Obama’s opponent in the 2012 US presidential elections. He is the republican candidate with the biggest budget and according to US media this is all what matters. The budget-race between Obama and Romney can be compared to 2008’s budget-race between the democratic candidates Obama and Hillary Clinton. Political issues that really matter and how each candidate would approach and progress when elected as president are left aside because they are too complex to be catchy and juicy. Take a look at The Wall Street Journal’s Politics & Policy sections: everything one will find is about polls, candidates budget and money.

    Therefore, by setting the agenda that a candidate’s budget is all what matters to becoming president, media outplays important issues like the current US economic situation after the crisis, medi-care problems or unemployment.  This might mislead voters to favor a candidate that is only media’s favorite but may not be suited for the job as US president.

    Candidates without a strong network of supporters and good possibilities of raising a significant amount of money might not even have a chance to be heard by voters, as they cannot display themselves as frequently as candidates having a budget like Romney. Those low-budget candidates are automatically degraded by  media and therefore by the society; the so important voters. 

Obama hiring Colombian hookers!

The Hayride

     The presidential elections in the United States are in full blast and media bites on anything that could somehow be interesting for the public. Most of the time it's a marginal issue pushed to a massive topic that doesn't even directly relate to the president’s political performance. A great example is the current "Colombian Prostitutes hired by the White House" scandal that overshadows important issues like the increasing social gap between poor and rich, the recovery of the economy in the United States or the proposition letters of the candidates, which all need to be addressed in the US at this time. But... Finally! We have an Obama scandal…

    Headings used in media such as "Obama's agents having Colombian prostitutes" or "Obama's sexy scandals" attract people's attention and this story is definitely juicier than the recovery of the US after the financial crisis. However such topics "made" an issue by the media create nothing but nonsense connections. Unfortunately, what all people think is "oh my, Obama had prostitutes! He is bad! Shame on him!".

    It is not directly Obama's fault that it happened. He will take necessary steps to solve the problem and punish those responsible for this unmoral and unethical behavior. Media should rather point out that there shouldn’t be cuts in governmental spending because of that happening. Instead they directly connect and harm Obama rather than bubbling it up just to have a topic for “Obama”. However covering this headline is quiet boring and too complex. “Obama hiring hookers” is dramatic and juicy, better as media coverage.

Another important fact to consider is that creating such "issues" is just what Obama’s opponents are waiting for and the Republicans will not leave such. So not only media abuses this opportunity but they throw the ball at Obama’s opponents as well, which in return, of course, uses media to fire at Obama too.

    This example thus only underlines the fact that media raise juicy and politically irrelevant but more dramatic and disturbing issues and create false assumptions among people, voters. It is all about the context of drama, heavily coverable issues (e.g. candidates meeting famous people, click here to see how Obama uses testimonials and current issues to increase his popularity). Media make unrelated issues related. 

I have listed links providing an insight look to how differently media adresses this issue for you:

ABC News

ISN News

The Guardian
The New York Times

  

 The interaction and effects of Mediated Politics

   
    This blog is made as a project for my current Media&Society class. I however always wanted to try blogging, so I am quiet happy I can do so now and share my opinion and information with you.

   My blog will adresses how different media influence and shape the society in the United States and the presidential elections. I will however not concentrate on political issues or specific political topics but rather direct the information in this blog to people that are interested and curious about the USA, society, basic knowledge, media and communication. I will adress different issues and topics related to the current mediated politics and the elections in the USA. Discussing how media change the elections and the voters in the US. 
    So I hope I can take you into the new world of the elections in the states and how it almost seem like todays presidential elections in the US is almost like an reality live show rather than a serious election of a president for a nation as big as the United States of America.