On the Theme of Advertisements

Heres an article from todays New York Times about the use of negative advertisements in this year midterm elections:

"The result of the dueling accusations has been what both sides described on Tuesday as the most toxic midterm campaign environment in memory. It is a jarring blend of shadowy images, breathless announcers, jagged music and a dizzying array of statistics, counterstatistics and vote citations — all intended to present the members of Congress and their challengers in the worst possible light. Democratic and Republican strategists said they expected over 90 percent of the advertisements to be broadcast by Nov. 7 to be negative.

At the national level, the two parties are battling over issues like national security and the war in Iraq. But Congressional races play out on local airwaves, and the flood of commercials amounts to a parallel campaign, one that is often about the characters of individual challengers and obscure votes cast by incumbents. Frequently lost in the back-and-forth are the protests of candidates who say the negative advertisements are full of deliberate distortions and exaggerations."

Are There Really Elections This Year?

45 days till Election Day! Yet, because this year is considered to be an “off year” as there is no 2006 presidential election, less people than usual will be visiting the polls on November 7th. Many people will choose not to vote, if they are even aware that elections are taking place at all.

Many races are, however, taking place and much political activity is occurring. All 435 seats in the House of Representatives, along with 33 Senate and 36 Gubernatorial seats, are up for grabs. Therefore, these elections affect just as many people as a national presidential election would. Members of the House, though they are only in office for two years, serve an important function in creating new laws and tend to be very partisan, making the outcome on November 7th extremely important.

Accordingly, one would expect to see a ton of media coverage on the upcoming elections. When there is a presidential race, one begins hearing about it months, if not years (take all the speculation about Hillary Clinton) in advance. However, with only six weeks until Election Day, the reports are virtually non-existent. This is true in regard to the print news outlets and both local and national television coverage.

On September 24, 2006, The New York Times had one election related story in both the National and Metro sections. Page 35 of the paper, page 1 of the Metro Section, had an article titled “In House Race, Focus Shifts To Security.” The article concentrated on 12 time Connecticut Congresswoman Nancy L. Johnson and the shift in her campaign focus from domestic issues to national security issues. This is a recent development, coming in the days after the 5th anniversary of September 11th without any explanation. The article discusses the election in a larger sense, talking a little bit about national security in general and mentioning the Lamont-Leiberman Senate race, but mostly focuses on Johnson’s attempt to defeat democratic opponent Christopher S. Murphy.

Aside from this lack of coverage, one cannot help but notice what was covered instead. Thanks to The Times editorial staff the nation now knows that Donald Rumsfeld plays squash at the Pentagon (front page article titled “Rumsfeld Also Plays Hardball On Pentagon’s Squash Courts), National League Football is annoyed by the amount of noise fans make (front page article titled “For N.F.L., Crowd Noise Has Become a Headache), and the stories of students who have chosen to attend seminaries (front page of The Metro Section article titled “A Fraternity of Faith, Dwindling but Resolute). This is not to say that these things aren’t interesting to read, but they are not as newsworthy or important as the upcoming elections.

Television news coverage from the 24th was no different. The CW11 10 p.m. News, a local news broadcast, featured four stories somewhat related to politics. I now know President Clinton actively looked for Osama Bin Laden, Osama Bin Laden might not be dead, the country was safer before 9/11, and that former New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevy is addicted to being adored by strangers. Numerous murders and crimes were mentioned, but Mary Murphy and Peter Thorne did not utter the word Congress once. These anchors cannot be exclusively blamed for the oversight. CBS overlooked the whole subject of elections as well. Interestingly, there were more advertisements related to the election than news segments. Elliot Spitzer, who is running for New York State governor, had two ads shown during the 11 p.m. CBS newscast.

While some may say this post is unrepresentative of media coverage on Congressional elections, as it only covers one day six weeks away from Election Day, these findings are not unusual. Firstly, the media has proven over and over again that it would rather feature soft and sensational stories than political news. Even the stories dealing with politics or political figures on the news are sensationalized. The story on Bill Clinton saying he was tough on terrorism came in the context of him quarreling with a reporter. Similarly, the story on Jim McGreevey and the one about Rumsfeld in The Times, had nothing to do with politics. While Osama Bin Laden's possible death and the state of the country's security are important, a news broadcast should not be considered legitimate and informative because a little more than 6% of its stories (2/29) fit into the traditional definition of news.

With so little time and space going towards political news, it is no wonder that stories related to Congress get even less coverage. Since they are a less focused branch of government, it is hard for the media to decide who and what to cover and instead chooses to cover very little of anything. Members of Congress are aware of the minimal national and television news coverage and therefore focus their attention on local and print media outlets. Yet, even with the centralized efforts, as seen from the above examples, the congressional branch of government does not get the coverage it deserves unless something exciting, which is not the same as important, happens.

Aftergood Does Good

Steven Aftergood, director of the Government Secrecy Project of the Federation of American Scientists, thoroughly explained how governmental information becomes classified and unavailable to the public and the dangers such secrecy presents.

I had been expecting Aftergood to lambaste the current administration, a government many people consider excessively secretive. Yet, this did not occur. While his opening slide and example related to a daily briefing that President Bush received on the morning of August 6th, which said that Osama Bin Laden is looking to strike in the United States, he also said that having that information released does not necessarily mean that September 11th would not have occurred.

He was not interested in promoting a certain politician or party to the audience. Rather, he concerned himself with putting forth democracy, an ideal he believes his work of making information more readily available to the public, upholds. He explained that the best antidote to terrorism is democracy, which is not advanced by secrecy. Secrecy, when not employed correctly, places a blemish on the United States Constitution, the key document in our history to ensure the endurance of our nation as a democracy.

Along the same bipartisan lines, later on, when asked about the difference between the Clinton administration and Bush administration, he said, "I don't want to tell you simply Clinton good, Bush bad because that would be misleading." While Clinton definitely made declassification a priority, America is currently at war and the increased threat of combat brings security concerns with it.

Therefore, he chose to talk about national secrecy on the larger scale, without implicating any one particular person and party other than the general executive branch and those who work closely with it. This was appropriate considering that national secrecy is not a new problem, with the oldest known classified document dating back to World War I. It seems as if government secrecy has been a problem for decades, one that will not likely be solved by the time the current one is over.

Interestingly, and surprisingly as well, was the fact that Aftergood did not attack the idea of secrecy and classification on a whole either. "Secrecy actually services to the public interest when it preserves national security issues," he explained. Documents relating to war plans, identity of intelligence sources and plans of advanced military technology should be kept secret. Additionally, he said, there are certain documents in the public domain should not be there such as a blueprint of a nuclear weapon that he got in an e-mail. The system of classification and heightened security only becomes a problem when it is used to further political interests by limiting controversy and when it is used to separate the people and their legislative body.

Perhaps the most pressing question on the audience's mind, at least on my mind, was now that we are aware of the problem, what can be done about it. Aftergood explained that under the Freedom of Information Act, we can all request information from the government and therefore declassify it. The government is flexible, he said, and a motivated person has every right to challenge the classification system. "It's really an amazing feature of out government," he said, that everyday laymen could file law suits against the government to get what they want.

Upon reflection of the lecture, I would have to say that it was extremely informative and eye-opening. Yet, I am still with some questions. While he spoke about what American citizens can do to help themselves, and accordingly brought examples of law suits people have brought to the courts in an effort to declassify documents, he spoke very little about what media/press are doing to promote public information. While he did bring the example of the New York Times, a case where a lawsuit was brought against the newspaper for informationofrmation on a classified program, I can't help but wonder if this case was an exception. As we have discussed numerous times in class, and Leighley suggests over and over again, how much is the press working for the people and how much are they willing to challenge the government? It seems that the profit-seeker model is the prevailing model driving the media and without government information, there is little news to print and consequently little money to be made. Therefore, it is in the papers best interest to stay on the government's good side and keep their secrets safe from the outside world.

Perhaps an even more revealing question is whether or not there is a feeling of responsibility among the press to do so. Do reporters and editors feel a duty to work hard and question the openness of the executive branch in an effort to advance public awareness and democracy, or are they content to sit back and let someone else do their digging, only reporting classified information when it is handed to them by sources or declassified by the government. Although Aftergood said, "A free press is something close to the core definition of an American democracy," what good is it if reporters and media giants are too lazy or unconcerned to take advantage of it and challege the current system?

Welcome to the Blogosphere!

Blogging is a fairly new phenomenon that allows people to anonymously express their opinions in an uninhibited, public forum. It permits more individuals to get involved in the democratic process by giving them an outlet, independent of a major mass media conglomerate, to release and obtain political information. There are no guidelines on what and how to write, and no credentials are needed.

As Stephen Gyllenhaal, a contributor to the The Huffington Post blog, wrote in his bio:

"Stephen Gyllenhaal is entirely unqualified to write for this blog except that, as a citizen of the US --hell, as a citizen of the planet-- he has as much right to speak his mind as the next person."

So while blogging is considered by many to be a positive addition to the media, its aforementioned advantages may also be its biggest pitfall. Although there are a number of informative blogs, such as The Huffington Post, which carefully monitor who and what is posted on the sites, in most cases ANYONE can create a blog about ANYTHING. Similarly, and even more problematic, ANYONE can comment about WHATEVER THEY WANT on a blog! While this may encourage political discussion, it also means people can rant and rave about anything they want in whatever manner they choose.

Case and Point - AMERICAblog: A great nation deserves the truth.

The site itself is very liberal, which is apparent from the posts and advertisements on the page, but despite their biases, the writers do have a grasp on politics and the current administration and express that knowledge in a clear and concise manner. The same cannot be said about those who respond to their observations.

In a September 10th posting entitled "Bush won't help fight the terror of crime in US cities," Joe from D.C. argued that the crime rate is increasing since more money is going towards the war on terror than to local violence. He brought in substantial quotes to prove his point, resulting in a brief but interesting post. This post elicited 135 comments. Some responders did make thought provoking comments with a point. Most did not.

A lot of the bloggers gave one-line answers that failed to add anything to the discussion. For example, dad said, "criminals vote republican failure pays." Another wrote, "this govt doesnt give a rats ass about los angeles. they shoot all their propaganda in canada, to fuck the union writers, actors and directors." Regardless of whether or not these statements are true, they fail to add anything to the political discourse.

Aside from content, the rhetoric of many of the comments was crass (refer to the above statement again). There were also a bunch of "hell" and "ass" references. While it is hopeful that in today's apathetic society there are still individuals who are passionate about politics, that is not an excuse to use lewd language.

Additionally, a lot of the rude comments were personal affronts. In response to a comment, a Mrs. Peel wrote, "Has a "Liberal" joined the service in the last 10 years? Well, why don't you provide a list of all the enlistees and their polital affiliations from the past 10 years and we'll see? Put you money where your fat yap is, otherwise, STFU, chicken hawk." And for the record, the typo of the word political is her error, not mine.

Another interesting thing I noticed was that a lot of the comments came from the same people. After the first few responses the blog became more like a chat room. While in theory this is great because it implies that blogs are giving citizens around the country (and the world) an opportunity to engage in thought provoking, democracy advancing conversation, in reality this did not occur. After a while I felt like I was reading the transcript of a schoolyard fight between children. Additionally, much of the conversation shifted from the original topic. While again, in theory this seems positive, people posting comments just to post comments is helpful to no one. Like Leighley has said numerous times, more information does not equal a more educated public. Having a plethora of insubstantial rants on the internet adds nothing to society.

The blog referred to above is only one of the many examples of the sort of unintelligent conversation the blogoshpere tends to open up. While the intention of the original poster may be to start a candid political conversation with the masses, those reading their blogs may feel differently. It is a well-known principle that often the people who tend to speak up are those with strong opinions one way or another. Therefore, individuals who post on these blogs tend to have unshakable views coming into the posts and are not interested in hearing intelligent arguments. As a result, many blogs shift from being a valid vehicle of information to being a place people can express their political frustrations in a blunt way.

In my observations, the question is not whether or not the posters and commenters have political knowledge. I believe that they do because if they were completely apathetic to the United States government they would not comment at all. Rather, most of them are overzealous and extremely opinionated people who place little value on intellectual and respectful conversation.

The Jekyll-Hyde Relationship

Politicians and their press people have a very interesting relationship with the media. On the one hand, they are dependent on journalists to get their information out and gauge public opinion. On the other hand, they are critical of the media for not always portraying them in a positive light and according to their plan. Although they know it is their duty to give out information, and want to divulge certain facts, the media and government are locked in a constant power struggle over who will set the agenda and decide what news the public will get.

This ever-present tug of war is apparent at any press conference. As I was reading the Press Gaggle given by White House Press Secretary Robert Anthony “Tony” Snow and Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Frances Townsend on September 5th, the turbulent relationship between the media and government became glaringly obvious.

At the beginning, when Snow was in control since the reporters had not yet been given an opportunity to speak, the press secretary was accommodating and cordial. He gave the crowd warm greetings and gave them information, including a PDF of the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism. Additionally, while he put his foot down by saying the President would not be giving a televised briefing since “it doesn’t work for us,” he assured the reporters they would have enough audio and visual content to fit their needs. The journalists and government members were on a first name basis; a further indication that the two groups have a somewhat constant and friendly relationship.

Yet, it only took some time before the claws came out and it became obvious why the government has a bad reputation. As opposed to his opening, in which Snow came off as congenial and gave the press a lot of information, he quickly became unpleasant and secretive.
The phrases, “I can’t” and “I’m not going to,” were repeated both by Townsend and Snow when they did not want to answer a question outright. They also cut reporters off nine times before they had a chance to finish asking their questions, showing that even when Snow and Townsend opened up the floor they were still in charge since they cut off any question heading in an uncomfortable direction.

Answers that were given were extremely round about. The most glaring example of this was when a journalist questioned the press secretary’s intentions. Acknowledging that the government has an agenda concerning when and why they release certain information, one reporter said: “Is there no political motivation in these speeches?” Rather than give a simple yes or no, Snow spoke for a couple of minutes and then concluded with an ambiguous “you can do with it what you will.”

It was one of the last exchanges, however, that was the most disturbing and can be viewed as a microcosm of the whole conference. A reporter named David began his inquiry with pleasant, “hey, Tony how are you?” to which Snow replied “okay.” It then turned into a battle of words. When Snow tried to evade his question about President Bush trying to frame the political debate on national security by discussing the “major points,” David called him out on it and was then bombarded with insults. The Press Secretary of the United States, the “mouthpiece” of the most powerful man in the country, pointed fingers and slung insults like “you're rude,” instead of answering a question with tact. And for the record, the question was never officially answered.

Reading the transcript of this press conference made it crystal clear how the current administration, and the government in general, received its bad reputation. While they address the public, giving off the impression that they are providing the people with the information they need, it is just a front. Politicians are pretty much in full control of these situations, revealing what they want and only answering the questions that correctly correlate to the day’s agenda.

Huh?

Katie Couric's debut on the CBS Evening News has been discussed for months. As the first woman in the position, many people were curious as to what she would bring to the newscast.

So, what did she choose to talk about? BABY SURI CRUISE!!!!!

Does she need to be reminded she isn't on a morning news/talk show anymore?
Way to get people to take you seriously Katie!

There are many things about the 1970’s I will never understand. For example, what was the appeal of disco clothes? Yet, the movie “Network” (Turner Entertainment Co. 1976) is not one of them. The issues Paddy Chayefsky raises about television news and corporate media are both disheartening and unfortunately still very applicable today.

The primary messages of the film are obvious. Firstly, the news should ideally be an information vehicle for the public, independent of any big conglomerate, and unfortunately it is not. When the CCA assumed control of the UBS news department, the obsession with ratings increased and the quality of news decreased. Most of the stations employees were willing to do whatever it took to impress Mr. Jenkins and had no qualms about putting an “irresponsible man on national television,” even if it “violates every cannon of respectable broadcasting.” If the people were willing to watch it, the station was more than happy to air it. If a circus was going to get a higher share and rating than a decent news broadcast, it was the type of program that was going to be shown.

Secondly, it is a commentary on the dismal state of the American public. While it was amusing to see hundreds of people screaming “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore,” out their windows, it was also pathetic. The audience was taking Beale’s every word at face value and blindly following him. If he said it, they did it! Even as he revealed to them that despite what they might think, “T.V is not the truth,” and that “well tell you anything you want to hear…we’ll tell you any shit you want to hear,” they still kept tuning in. And although the people eventually stopped listening to his dreary messages, such as “the whole worlds people are becoming mass produced,” they didn’t do so because they were above his carnival act. Rather, they stopped watching because his message became too depressing and heaven forbid the news show something that is not exciting, regardless of how true it may be.

Yet, Chayefsky is not just blaming poor and inconsequential news on corporate ownership of the media. Even before Diana, Frank and the CCA assumed control of the UBS news department, it was not fulfilling the duties of a news broadcast. The program under Max was still not a top quality, intellectually stimulating, informative show. As Diana pointed out to Max, his version of a sincere news program was no picture of high-level journalism. The stories aired, like a women riding through Central Park nude, were sensational and unimportant. Although it may not have been as extreme or as obvious, the news was still a vehicle for attracting audiences, and as Diana cynically pointed out, “If you’re going to hustle at least do it right.” Similarly, after Howard Beale’s initial breakdown, it was reported on all the other stations and in papers across the country. As Diana noted, there was war, famine and rising gas prices to worry about, but a crazy newscaster and his outburst are what made front page of the newspaper. Media outlets, regardless of who is running them, are not living up to their responsibilities. Instead of helping the public become more informed, they are trying to attract the public by turning the news into a series of soft segments instead of a service.

So while I enjoyed the film, laughing at the appropriate places and hating the unlikable characters, it left me with a hollow feeling. The media coverage in this country is not the only thing on the decline. The interest of the American people in real issues is also going down, making us more accepting of soft inconsequential news and the gospel of others.

Al Gore on MTV?

With this post comes an admission. Last night were the MTV Video Music Awards (VMA's), and I tuned into watch. All the big names in music were there, including..... Al Gore? Yes, you read that right. Some gothic band accepted an award and then Queen Latifah introduced “the former vice president of these United States of America.”
Yet, there was something even more shocking than his presence. He said, "I was not planning on being here tonight but then MTV explained to me that Justin Timberlake was bringing Sexy Back so here I am." We'll that’s something you don’t here a politician say all the time! He then went on to mispronounce Christina Aguilera's name before getting to the real reason he was at the show. He spent about a minute and a half talking about the environment and global warming, urging the teens in the audience to do their part to beat these problems.
While this seemed like an odd venue for him to be spreading his message at, I knew from Leighley that this wasn’t the first time a politician appeared on this type of program. Beginning in the early 1990’s, politicians have been making appearances on softer shows such as talk shows to gain exposure and get their message out. So while Al Gore might be the only one admitting that Justin Timberlake is sexy, he is not the only politician looking to expand his visibility through media outlets other than traditional news programs.