All Hail the...President?

According to recent polls, the number of American people who do not approve of how President George W. Bush is handling his job out numbers those who do. In all of the polls conducted this year, the numbers in the “disapprove” column are greater than those in the “approve” column. At face value it would seem correct to assume that Americans are unhappy with the President and his conservative policies.

Yet, this is not necessarily a fair conclusion. As previously noted, in general, one must be skeptical when viewing any type of poll and be careful to ask the important and pertinent questions such as, who is doing the asking, what is being asked, and who is being asked. Just because it claims to be measuring public opinion does not mean it is.

Take this specific approval rating poll conducted by CNN this past weekend. While it would seem that this poll is telling us a lot about the mood of the country and their opinion on how the President is doing, it doesn't. Without trying to sound too repetitive we must keep in mind that once again CNN is not telling us nearly enough about whose opinion they are soliciting. They polled 1,014 adults (18 or older). Are these people citizens? Are they voters? How were they chosen? How were they approached for answers? It's great that these people are generally discontented with the President but if we do not know who these people are and if they accurately represent the public mood. If they don’t, who really cares what they think?

For arguments sake though, let’s assume this poll is scientific and can be considered legitimate. As an approval rating it still, by nature, does not tell us much.

We cannot make many specific conclusions from this poll aside from the fact that many people feel the President isn’t doing his job well. It would be erroneous for CNN to take this poll and make their next headline: "Majority of Americans support gay marriage" or "Americans are against the war in Iraq," since these are specific things the President does not agree with. In fact, as recorded in the article “Shaping Public Opinion: The 9/11-Iraq Connection in the Bush Administration’s Rhetoric,” the opposite may be true. Approval ratings tell us nothing about specific policies and cannot be used as a vehicle to measure how the public feels about explicit topics.

Similarly, it would be wrong for CNN to use these results to connote that something the President did over the weekend has received the scorn of the public. A headline reading “Americans want Hurricane Katrina Victims to be taxed,” would be inaccurate. The negative approval ratings recorded this past weekend are only the most updated lackluster performance evaluations the public has given the President. CNN has not reported a positive approval rating for President Bush since at least September 2005. While this latest approval rating may be emphasized by the network since the elections are rapidly approaching, the public should be careful to give this poll too much credence since it is not new or revolutionary and again does not say anything specific about President Bush and Republican policy.

As seen by this poll, Presidential approval rating polls are uninformative and should not be given much weight since they don't really measure much. While they may help further specific people’s political agendas by giving them data they can publicize to show Americans why a certain politician/party is good or bad, they do little to help the public. Polls are supposed to gauge public opinion so that politicians and government officials can get feedback on their policies and adjust them to the wants and desires of the people they serve. Approval rating polls do not measure this and are useless in pinpointing specific points of contention and inciting changes in the appropriate areas.

Whose Opinion Is It Really?

As we have discussed in class, the “doublespeak” George Orwell wrote about in his novel “1984” is still alive and well in this country. We mentioned the most well know example, the fact that the War Department is now the Department of Defense.

After reading the pieces The Nation in a Room, Best Estimates, 20 Questions Journalists Should Ask About Poll Results and Tomgram: Schwartz on polling as a political narcotic, I realized another term that is disguised in a nicer name: PUBLIC OPINION POLLING. These polls are being conducted on a daily basis by organizations, companies and political candidates around the world, but how accurately they actually reflect public opinion can be debated.

Take this poll, conducted by CNN and posted on the Roper Center’s website. Taken at face value, the poll indicates that as of October 6th, a short 20 days ago, a majority of the country believes that the war in Iraq has made the country less safe from terrorism.

The poll asked: Do you think the war with Iraq has made the US (United States) safer or less safe from terrorism?

36% of people said safer, 53% said less safe, 7% said no change and 4% said no opinion.

Yet, like most things, the results of this poll cannot be taken at face value. The first thing to note is who's doing the asking. CNN is considered a more liberal television station so these results fit perfectly with the agenda they may be trying to promote. Because 53% of the people they asked think this country has gotten less safe since Iraq was invaded, they can now perhaps claim that the country is unhappy with the war and the President.

But, referring back to the premise of this post, is this really the public's opinion? First off, all we are told is that this poll was done by telephone. Over 1000 people were polled and these were the results. Normally this would mean that CNN asked a significant amount of people, enough to gauge public opinion, and that the expected margin of error would be low. Yet, we are not informed as to how the people called were chosen, the population they were chosen from, and if everyone they called was home and responded. Did the pollers call over 1000 people or did over 1000 people respond? Did they coerce the people they wanted to answer to answer by being extremely persistent or was participation voluntary, and they just used the responses of the first 1000 people they randomly called. Were the people asked representative of the whole country or did they come from a specific age group, political party or geographic region? This makes a difference when attempting to determine how accurate and scientific the results are.

The second issue with this poll is the question. By phrasing the question in the way they did, CNN infused certain biases into the response. It has been proven that despite what President Bush has claimed, Iraq and Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with September 11th and the terrible acts of terror that were inflicted on the United States when four planes were hijacked by members of Al Qaeda and crashed in various parts of the country. However, this query into public opinion may imply the opposite. By putting the phrase "war in Iraq" in a sentence together with terrorism, people may begin to think of the two issues as interconnected and that one affects the other. If they think the war in Iraq is going badly, which many liberals who trust CNN for news do, they may assume that the threat of terrorism has increased.

According to this poll 53% of the country believes America was safer from terrorism before the war in Iraq. This may be true. Unfortunately though, based exclusively on these poll results, one cannot be sure. While this poll was conducted to get a sense of how the public views the current terrorist threat and it's relation to the war in Iraq, it brings about more questions than it answers.

Wake Up And Pay Attention

As an English Communications/Journalism major, I am familiar with the importance of word choice. Using the word “claim” implies something different than “stated.” Calling someone a “terrorist” is not the same as calling them a “militant.” Writing that someone “died” paints a different picture than describing in detail how someone was murdered.

Yet, I am not the only one who understands how crucial language and word selection is in making a point. Politicians, as George Orwell points out in his article “Politics in the English Language,” are aware of this as well. Each time they speak, their speeches are the product of hours and hours of work in which every phrase, word and letter was carefully planned out and reviewed before being used.

The fact that political statements are so planned out, and thus become painstakingly similar, is obvious when listening to any elected official, or really anyone in a position of power, speak. As Orwell put it, “One often has a curious feeling that one is not watching a live human being but some kind of dummy.” While one may have voted for a politician based on his political speeches, it was really his public relations people and speechwriters who have swayed them. The political figures are just mouthpieces of those who work behind the scenes and their party/organization. The individual is not necessarily eloquent and intelligent but “… has gone some distance towards turning himself into a machine. The appropriate noises are coming out of his larynx but his brain is not involved as it would be if he were choosing the words for himself.”

This unconsciousness of the speaker becomes especially apparent during press conferences and other question-answer forums. Looking back to a 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, as well as a previous post of mine, one cannot help but notice how things spun slightly out of control when the questions began. Snow got extremely defensive very quickly. He also failed to answer many of the questions, choosing instead to reiterate what he said in the planned part of his speech in a lot of words regardles of what was asked.

While in that post I suggested that this was a way for him, and the government at large, to exercise and maintain control over the press despite the fact that press conferences are only considered “partially controlled news events,” after reading Orwell’s piece another possible answer came to mind. Not only did Snow not want to answer the questions, perhaps he couldn’t answer the questions. Snow is the Press Secretary. His role is to provide daily news briefings. This does not mean he is an expert on the topics he adresses. While he may have written this particular speech, he is not necessarily the one who researches and comes up with everything he says. Therefore, when caught off guard by a question he relies on long answers and common phrases like war on terror and democracy to hide his lack of expertise.

And like Orwell points out, this is a problem that crosses party lines and is prevalent outide of the political arena as well. When people don’t know how to answer a question, they don’t really answer it. Yet, they do not remain silent either. Rather, instead of being clear and concise, which is the most effective way to communicate, they will talk for a long time about nothing at all. Often, it is only after a speech when one sits down to record the event or reflect on what went on, that one realizes that despite the pages of notes and hours of tape they may have, very little was actually said. “Poltical language—and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservaticvces to Anarchists—is designed to… give an appearance of solidity to pure winds.”

And while Orwell gives some suggestions about how politicians can improve their speeches through the language they use, they have not taken his advice in the last sixty years. So if speechwriters are not going to change their writing habits, the audience must change how they listen. We must not take everything at face value. What is said at an uncontrolled news event should be given more importance when evaluating a politican, even though the mainstream media is more prone to emphasize larger, preplanned events, because it is in these rare intances that the true views and personality of the speaker may come out. Furthermore, despite the fact that television has drastically lowered our attention spans and ability to concentrate for long periods of time, we must not get distracted by euphamisms and familiar phrases politicians and others spew out when speaking and answering questions. Rather, we must pay attention to the content of the answers, realizing when they are just repetitive rants which add nothing to the discussion that has not already been said.

The Internet: Not All Its Cracked Up To Be

When the Internet was established in the 1980’s, critics of the MSM were convinced their prayers were answered. They were under the impression that a system with the ability to counter the commercial media market had been set up. Now there was a technological advancement that could give the public exposure to news and information that did not necessarily support and advance the views and interests of the concentrated elite controlling the MSM.

They were not wrong. The Internet promotes the democratic ideals the American press and media were founded on. It has answered the problems created by the MSM by becoming a venue for public discourse and uncensored journalism. Setting up a website is generally inexpensive, so anyone, not just the small number of corporations who dominate the commercial media, can get their point of view out to the public. Any group, no matter how marginal, can express their opinions and report what they believe is important.

As Leighley pointed out, “The Internet provides instant and abundant information from diverse information sources, and it makes widespread participation in the political system possible via the use of chatrooms, electronic town hall meetings, low-cost communication with government officials, and, eventually, electronic voting in referenda, initiatives, and general elections.”

Furthermore, blogs, which can be set up by anyone using free services like Blogger, allow individuals to both express themselves and make the MSM more accountable by exposing it’s blunders and biases. It also gives people from around the world a place to directly communicate with one another and engage in intelligent (though this is not always the case) debates.

Yet, as both McChesney and Leighley argue, the positive affects of the Internet have been exaggerated. Anyone who believes that the Internet is a technological advancement completely different from and opposed to the MSM is mistaken.

Firstly, the Internet is not only a forum for subsidiary news outlets. All the different components included in the MSM have their own web pages. Therefore, instead of exclusively challenging them, the Internet actually increases the amount of people the MSM can reach. Most people use the Internet not to look up obscure web pages that may give them a new perspective on political affairs, but to search the sites of major networks and publications such as CNN and The New York Times. The public has chosen to make the Internet a complement to the MSM instead of a competitor.

Additionally, the Internet is not shielded from the hyper-commercialism that has over taken the MSM. Web pages boast an abundance of advertisements for a plethora of products. Just like on television, radio or in newspapers, these ads are carefully placed and generate a lot of revenue. On some sites the infusion of information and advertisements makes it hard to distinguish which one is which, just like in the MSM.

And while Leighley and McChesney believe it is too soon to establish whether or not the Internet has been a positive technological advancement in terms of the effects it has on people and the media system, in it’s ideal form the Internet is supposed to be a positive alternative to the MSM. Yet, it is the Internet's beneficial and distinctive attributes that have made it more and more like the MSM. By being open to anyone, commercial media conglomerates have used it to their advantage by creating their own Internet sites. In giving the public a choice in the information they request and access, the Internet has advanced the amount of people the corporations behind the MSM can influence. In being unregulated, in the true sense of the word, the Internet has opened its doors to those profit-seekers intent on spreading the scope of commercialism for their own good.

Rochester, New York: Political Hotspot?

I spent the last part of my break in Rochester, New York. Although there is supposedly a lot to do in the city, I did not really expect much from my short visit aside from a long car drive and cold weather. And while I did get both those things, I was also privileged to get to experience what it would be like to live in a small town filled with polite, laid back and politically charged individuals.

While New York City is filled with apartment buildings and concrete, Rochester boasts private homes with large green front lawns. And while I did not spend much time outdoors due to the low temperatures, in the short time I was not huddled by a heater it was hard not to notice the myriad of campaign signs perched in front of many of the homes. The posters advertised candidates from all the different races taking place in New York State - Congressional, Gubernatorial, Senatorial, Judicial- and beyond (many people had signs for Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman). Some residents only put up one sign while the people down the block from where I was staying decorated their lawn with six.

This display of political activity struck for me two reasons. Firstly, while it seemed like McChesney covered every possible venue for both political and consumer advertising in “The Problem of The Media - U.S. Communication Politics in the 21st Century,” he did not really talk the role citizens in this country, and not corporate heads and political PR people, play in advertising. And while one may think this small display of support and awareness for a particular government hopeful is insignificant, thus explaining why it was not given much space, I beg to differ. As I was walking down one block with a friend she abruptly stopped the conversation and asked “when are the elections anyway?” Granted this anecdote proves another point in that this years elections are not being given as much attention as they should, it also illustrates how these simple local advertisements are effective in that they can raise general political awareness and garner support for individual candidates.

Secondly, this display in Rochester restored some of my faith in the American people. While both McChesney and Leighley have stressed how uninterested and uninvolved the citizens of this country are with politics, the people of Rochester defied this generalization. They are not only following the elections on their own time and presumably planning to vote on November 7th, but they believe the upcoming elections to be so important that they are willing to campaign for their candidates and mess up their lawns for a couple of weeks in an attempt to mobilize support for their favorite politicians.

Tragic for Everyone….Except the Media Of Course!

Corey Lidle, a pitcher for the New York Yankees, died today after his small plane crashed into a 42-story building on Manhattan's Upper East Side.
This story is a tragedy. Two men died unexpectedly. Eighteen people were injured. And to think, if the Yankees were still in the Playoffs, Lidle would have been at Yankee Stadium and none of this would have ever happened (Sorry, I'm still a bit bitter by the early elimination).

So while a wife, a son and a baseball team are mourning, at least someone got to benefit from this calamity: THE MEDIA. This story was immediately broadcasted on every station over and over again. As I spent a low-key night in front of the television, every commercial for every evening newscast alluded to this story. This was then the lead story on the 5:00 and 10:00 news, and while I didn't see any other shows, I think it would be safe to assume it made the 6,7, and 11 o'clock news as well.

This could only be expected. In accordance with the profit seeker model of the media, this occurrence has all the elements of a “good news story.” Firstly, it featured what Herbert Gans referred to as “knowns.” After being traded to the Yankees in July, Corey Lidle became a well-known sports star. This makes the story more attention grabbing than it would be had a middle class, middle-aged accountant been flying the plane.

Secondly, this story was about a plane crash in New York City. This is exactly the type of sensational story people love to hear about. Interest generates viewers, viewers convert into dollars, and dollars translate into happy corporate heads.

Furthermore, this episode is appealing to more than one group of people, which as mentioned above, generates profits. A sports aficionado would be interested in this story because its main character is a baseball player. New Yorkers would be interested in this story because it occurred on E.72nd Street. People with pilot licenses would be equally intrigued by this story. And of course, those who regularly rely on the evening news to find out about the latest drug bust, national disaster or catastrophe would be glued to their television sets.

Elections are taking place in 27 days. The Speaker of the House of Representatives is under scrutiny and may resign. North Korea claims to have nuclear weapons and the nations of the world are concerned. There is a war going on in Iraq. Yet, these stories were over shadowed by a freak accident that has no bearing on the future. Although the other stories listed affect the entire country, and some even concern the entire world, they don’t interest nearly as many people as they touch. Therefore, a story about two men, one of whom wears pinstripes, in a plane crash gets top billing over anything else.

Differences of Opinion

Last week I had attended a lecture entitled "Ethics and Journalism: Should We Trust the Media?” at the Society for Ethical Culture. The expert panel was composed of Helen Thomas, the famed former White House Press Core Member, Adam Moss, editor of New York Magazine, Randall Pinkston, field correspondent for CBS News, Jeff Jarvis, a television critic for TV Guide and People Magazine and Richard Stengel, managing editor of TIME magazine.

The forum was organized on the premise that the media is more unethical today then it has been in the past and that journalism is not as reputable as it once was. Interestingly though, most of the panelists refuted this point. Moss said that he thinks this rumor has been promulgated by the Bush administration to attack and discredit the media. Pinkston said a similar thing, explaining that the media is not less ethical than before but that more people are saying so which is leading others to believe it.

Thomas was basically the only one who concurred with the assumptions of those who organized the lecture. Although she was mainly talking about the White House Press Core, she made a number of generalizations about reporters and the job they are doing:

“The State of Journalism has Been Lousy”
“Reporters Have Rolled Over and Played Dead” (said this 2X)
“The Press Just Absolutely Lost its Soul”
“I Think the Press has Really Let the Public Down”

While I do not necessarily think the situation is as rosy as the other participants painted it, I also think that Thomas was a little hard on the White House Press Core. I believe she placed too much blame on the journalists and not enough on the administration. As one can read in a previous post of mine on a White House Press Gaggle, the press did try to challenge White House Press Secretary Snow. Ultimately though, he was running the show and was only going to answer the questions that fit into his agenda in whatever way he saw fit. Therefore, while the press could try to be more hard hitting and challenge the government more, without a supportive administration there is little they can do to get more, both in terms of quality and quantity, information.

I had to disagree with Ms. Thomas on another point as well. She was very quick to dismiss blogging as an illegitimate form of journalism. “Everyone with a laptop thinks he’s a journalist,” she said with a bit of disdain, and concluded that the lack of professional experience these 'online journalists' have is hurting the profession.

Firstly, she failed to acknowledge the experience and high level of political knowledge many bloggers have. While some people do use the blogosphere to rant and rave about either inconsequential things or consequential things in a disrespectful and unintelligent matter, many do not. Blogging is very valuable, giving many people with important things to say a venue in which to say them. Critical issues that have been overlooked by the mainstream media for their political concentration and/or lack of sensationalism are now being discussed.

Furthermore, as many of the panelists pointed out in blatant opposition to Thomas’s insinuation about blogs, the public, and reporters dedicated to the ideals of journalsim (conveying truth and infroming the public), should welcome blogs to the news world becaue they actually elevate journalism and hold journalists accountable for their work. As Stengel said, quoting bloggers around the world, “we can now fact check your ass.” The blogosphere keeps reporters and news sources in check by picking up on even the slightest mistakes.

The blogophere also promotes democracy, a value journalism in its ideal form is supposed to uphold. Now every person with a computer can participate in the news process. People from all over the world are connected. Everyone can now have a voice. While opening up the media in this way may have some negative results, as Thomas implied, in a country claiming to be committed to freedom and equality, this inclusiveness is necessary and should be welcome.

Fiction Film With A Whole Lot Of Truth

While broadcast journalism is providing society with a service, giving them some idea of what is happening both locally and in the world, that is not the primary concern of the networks. First and foremost, as proven numerous times by Leighley and argued by McChesney in “The Problem of the Media,” news stations are working to make a profit. News is a business, one that is contingent on getting advertisements, which is dependent on getting an audience. Therefore, network executives will do anything to get people to watch and stay tuned to their programs.

One of the primary ways stations reel people in to their broadcast is with their anchors. Anchors are not reporters; they are performers. They are good looking, personable individuals who usually have little journalism experience and do not know much about the stories they are relaying to the public. They are made up and told how to speak so they give off a trustworthy and credible impression to the viewer. Without this sense, audiences will doubt the anchors authority and be unwilling to listen to what they have to say. They are the face of the news, a position that often gives them both the status and the salary of well-known actors since this is precisely what they are.

Tom, the good-looking but simple news anchor in the film "Broadcast News,” illustrates this point perfectly. Having received no college education and having little intelligence, all he had going for him were his good looks, which ended up getting him very far. The station featured in the movie chose to put him in the anchor seat, a job that allowed him to influence a large number of people, over Aaron, the more experienced but average looking journalist, simply because he had more allure. He had a lot of adoring fans; something the news station was counting on when they hired him. While Aaron may have been willing to risk his life for the network, it was Tom who was bringing in the viewers and was therefore getting the salary and recognition Aaron was never given.

While the audience might think that this isn’t affecting the quality of the news they are getting, it is. This was demonstrated in the film when Jane got upset that Tom, and not Aaron, was reporting on the emergency situation that arose. She felt that Aaron would have been the better choice since he was familiar with the subject and would have been able to add valuable insight to the piece. Instead Tom anchored the broadcast with no background information or previous knowledge of the situation while wearing an earpiece so Jane, the executive director of the segment, could guide him on what to say.

Yet, the actor on the screen is not the only illusion. The assumption that one is getting a full report on the most important occurrences of the day is also false. What is broadcasted is up to the specific producer and director of the program. They are in charge of making the major editorial decisions such as what stories to air and when to air them. In the film, when a station worker was asked if a story was going to appear in the news he answered, “ [it] depends on how big a news day it is.” What is considered to be news one day may not be deemed news the next day. The decision is also influenced by what will draw in and hook the most viewers, and consequently, more often then not, the most significant national and international events will be overlooked for a feature story on celebrities or crime because these pieces have universal appeal and are enjoyed by most people.

Although it is of no concern to the network, having appeal does not make something news. In the film, the station tried to attract viewers by airing a package on date rape. They featured a moving piece on a shy woman recounting her tragic experience and she and Tom, who was interviewing her, were shown crying. And while everyone at the station was satisfied with the segment since Tom succeeded in connecting with the audience, a skeptical Aaron asked the real question, “Is this news?” Just because something is featured on television does not automatically make it such.

One may still argue that regardless of who is reporting the news, and regardless of what they are saying is the most essential thing that happened that day, at least what is being shown is accurate. This isn’t completely true either. Pieces are heavily edited by myriad of technicians to make sure they sound and look good, and are the right amount of time. As seen in the film, the content of the original clip in often changed before it is aired to increase the quality of the clip. A lot of behind the scenes work goes into guaranteeing that the viewer is seeing a good excerpt regardless if it is 100% accurate.

Similarly, things that didn’t happen at the time of the taping may be added to a clip to make it more compelling. In the case of the date rape segment, Tom was not crying during the interview. There was only one camera at the shoot and it was focused on the victim the entire time. The camera crew stopped the taping to get shots of Tom crying, something that was planned and unnatural. Editing is not only used to improve what is already in a clip, but it also adds elements to a piece which did not happen on their own at the time the event was unfolding.

The saying, “looks can be deceiving,” is illustrated in the film “Broadcast News.” What one watches on the news is not as accurate and complete as one may have thought. Because broadcast journalism is a business, network executives constantly ignore the ethics associated with fair and honest reporting if it conflicts with attracting viewers and profits. More often than not, all one is actually seeing is a compilation of heavily edited segments relayed by an uninformed actor on things that might not objectively be considered news.

Those were the Days

As a journalism student I have taken many classes intended to teach me how to write effectively as a reporter. While each of my professors has had different tips and techniques to offer, they all relayed one basic point. “Be objective” they all said. Present both sides of the story without getting involved was usually their main piece of advice.

Imagine then how surprised I was when Leighley ended “Mass Media and Politics” by suggesting that partisan news coverage may be an effective way to combat the problems today’s profit seeker media model is presenting for the public and democracy. I was immediately confused as to how this would solve the problem. How could making all news stations like Fox News (her example, not mine), a network that promotes one side of two sided issues in a way that convinces the public to believe what it has to say, help? If anything, I felt this would exacerbate the dilemma.

Yet, my mind was working faster than my eyes. By reading just a few more words Leighley reveals the difference between her proposition and today’s partisan media. Today’s stations claim to be “fair and balanced” among other things. Yet, in Leighley’s ideal media universe, it would be known that partisan stations were partisan. Viewers would know which channels were conservative, which were liberal, which were pushing a labor agenda etc. The audience would know what they were getting, as opposed to today where they are often unaware that they are getting fed propaganda.

And while she describes this type of news media coverage to be “radical,” a thought that I had when reading through chapter nine of the book as well, after reading McChesney, this idea did not seem so novel after all. Originally, the press in this country was partisan, and did a great job in informing the public on important issues. It was this “one sided” media that was founded with our democratic system and perhaps did the best job of exemplifying and promoting it. Therefore, without disrespecting Leighley, what she is suggesting is not so far-reaching after all. Rather, she is just expressing a nostalgia many media critics and journalists have when they compare the current state of the press and broadcast stations versus what was and what could be.

Selling Politicians

Political advertisements, while informative and entertaining at times, are also ways for candidates to engage in name-calling and mudslinging. While there are those ads that focus on the positive aspects of the hopeful politician they are representing, more often then not they bash their opponents, giving the viewer/listener reasons why they shouldn’t vote for the other guy instead of reasons why they should vote for the person themselves.

And while many people may criticize this aspect of political advertising, seeing that it is often dishonest and exaggerated, undignified, and not as helpful as straight up policy information might be in promoting the democratic values that our electoral system and election campaigns are supposed to represent, politicians are not using advertisements any differently then the way the rest of the consumer world is.

According to an article from today’s New York Times, entitled “Cellphone Carriers Focus Ads on Each Other,” cellphone companies have changed their marketing tactics to be more insulting and negative, instead of simply putting their product forward.

"No more Mr. Nice Guy.
That’s the message cellphone companies seem to be sending in their recent ads. Instead of trumpeting low prices and new phones in advertisements bathed in orange, red, yellow or hot pink, they are pointing out more and more their rivals’ shortcomings."

The article goes on to explain that years ago cell phone companies concentrated on getting people to buy cellphones, but in today’s society, where most people already own them, the companies are more concerned with getting people to buy their particular kind of phone.

It makes sense that political ads mimic everyday consumer ads. After all, the goal of both parties putting out the commercials is to sell something. Sprint, Alltell and T-Mobile (can be replaced with the brand names of any number of products) want people to buy their phones and the media teams of political candidates want people to “buy” their candidates by voting for them. Just as when people see a product on television they want they will go out and buy it, when people see a candidate they like they will go out and vote for him/her so he can get elected. With the ends being the same it makes sense that the means of insulting the competitors is the same as well.

Another interesting point in the article was that in order to attract more customers,

"T-Mobile plans to phase out its elegant spokeswoman, Catherine Zeta-Jones, and to replace her with ordinary people, like those used by other carriers."

This is also a strategy used in political ads. Candidates try to find actors or real people (one can believe whatever he chooses about the individuals in the commercials) that are representative of the public/consumer in order to appear well rounded and inclusive. Politicians will include people from every minority group in their commercials so that they appeal to the widest group of individuals and so that citizens from every demographic will feel that they can relate to them.