Thanks but, No Thanks Poli Sci

“If media surveillance causes governments to fall and public officials to be ousted, democracy is well served” Doris A. Graber (2010)

I can understand what Graber must have meant when she wrote this line in her book, “Mass Media and American Politics”. She came to the conclusion that a major role that the media pay in a democracy is the people’s watchdog on the government. Her statement obligates the media to report to the people every and any events that in turn would mobilize the people to cause “…governments to fall and public officials to be ousted…” Graber also notes that the media must also “interpret the events’ meanings, [and] put them into context.”

What must we conclude then, when the media, not only fails to do so but, report false claims within their interpretation of event’s, which then leads a group of people to want “public officials to be ousted”, on such false premises?

 “As outrageous as those breaches of decency are, they are merely the latest extension of Obama’s polarizing presidency.”(1)

“President Obama's intensity remained static during that same period, but he remains more polarizing than Romney.”(2)

“Obama: The most polarizing president. Ever.” (3)

WTF!!!!!!!!!!!

(Excuse me for my abbreviations, but seriously why must so many Americans be exposed to such horrendous misleading information?)

The latest attacks on President Obama have made me sick, and would likely make Sean Theriault rip his hair out. 

Who is Sean Theriault? Well you may know him as the author of a little book titled “Party Polarization in Congress.” In his book Theriault covers four major variables which he finds to significantlyinfluence party polarization in Congress; these are as follows: redistricting, geographic sorting, the institutions and procedures of the House and Senate, and the influence of party activist.

Wait. Did Theriault miss something? Are these journalists on the cutting edge of research on party polarization? Or are there methods of determining that President Obama is the cause of polarization through a gallop poll severely flawed? (3)

We need a watchdog over our watchdog. Be it Jon Stewart or Sean Theriault, someone must report to the public all of the flaws the media make, for the sake of preventing Americans to be mal-informed by atrocities such as the one above. We need political science to be integrated into our mainstream media.

Thank you Brendon Nyhan and John Sides for your essay “How Political Science Can Help Journalism”

Though I fear your work may fall on the death ear’s of the media as most political science, such as Theriault’s work, has.

(1)    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/04/30/president-obama-is-getting-desperate-and-it-shows/#ixzz1taBa21K1

(2)    http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865554601/Mitt-Romney-and-Barack-Obama-battle-for-voter-intensity-edge.html

(3)    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/obama-the-most-polarizing-president-ever/2012/01/29/gIQAmmkBbQ_blog.html

The Obama Advertising Machine

There is no doubt that the internet has changed who we are as a society.  We can now connect with anyone at the touch of a button and video chat with people on the other side of the world in a matter of seconds.  The internet has created a more informed citizenry and there are even studies that suggest civic engagement and internet usage might be linked.  By the way, did I mention that the internet has changed political campaigns in a fundamental way.  Many argue that Barack Obama was the first candidate who was effectively able to harness the true power of the internet in his presidential campaign in 2008, and it paid off.  With the 2012 campaign cycle in full swing, it is important to briefly discuss how the internet has changed campaigning.

The main thing I want to discuss here is the ability of candidates to target specific groups.  Have you ever tried to create a Facebook ad?  They ask you a million questions about who you are trying to target and just how many people you are looking to reach.  In fact, Facebook even estimates the number of people that will see your ad.  The age of the internet has changed campaign advertising.  You can't even go on a website anymore without seeing an ad for one presidential candidate or another.  My personal favorite is when both candidates have ads right next to each other on the same website, but thats beside the point.

I think it is remarkable, and brilliant, how the Obama campaign has been able to target specific groups of voters.  Now, don't get me wrong, I'm no Obama supporter.  But, you can't help but be amazed by the grassroots and social media campaign that he is able to run.  Ever notice the websites where you are most likely to see Obama ads?  Well, if you haven't let me tell you, it is websites that are frequented by young people.  The Daily Show, YouTube, Facebook, these are all typical places to find an Obama campaign ad.  In fact, sometimes I get annoyed by all of the Obama 2012 ads that continually pop up.  However, when you step back and look at it, it really is amazing.  President Obama knows that a key voting bloc for his reelection bid is the young voters and he is not hesitating to go after their votes.

This ability to target advertisements has really changed the campaigning landscape.  Young voters are now more likely to see ads that are tailored to discuss the issues important to them.  The same thing goes for middle-aged and older voters as well.  The internet bombards us with information about politics that we are, frankly, not able to ignore.  I would have to argue that the expansion of political advertising on the internet is stimulating the younger generation and even fostering their involvement in politics.  Look at the voting date from the 2008 election.  Young voters came out in large numbers in support of Barack Obama.  One can't help but think it has something to do with his ability to target them in his advertising.

The internet has changed political campaigning in a fundamental way and I would argue that this change is a good thing.

On the Monkey Cage, John Sides blogged about public knowledge of recent political events, ones that we can assume were reported on by the mass media. In this blog titled, Why Campaigns Have So Few "Game-Changers," he commented that the survey showed that Americans cared very little about this campaign and the political events that have occurred.

While these are the findings of the survey, Sides concludes that although the inability to answer specific "events-related" questions accurately is shown, Americans are certainly not unintelligent or bad citizens. They just don't follow politics very closely, which is entirely normal.

Sides's most important comment however was what we can deduct from this survey- it does more "to question the assumptions of commentators, who are often anxious to inflate every argument during the campaign to a 'game changer'—even if many Americans aren’t really watching the game." This conclusion is interesting because it seems to contradict the nature of the "marketplace" with regards to the mass media providing what Americans desire to "consume." If Americans are not really watching the political game, then why would the media place emphasis on the campaign and what candidates are saying? Possibly, the media is fulfilling their role by still providing political coverage despite what the public truly desires to watch or read.

Typically, an average individual remembers the frivolous remarks or reports of the news such as the ones utilized in the survey-"Santorum’s statement about birth control, Obama’s call to Sandra Fluke, and Santorum’s comment about Obama’s snobbery." If Americans cannot even recall these highly reported events, what exactly are they doing? And if no one is truly watching, and the media still reports on it, are they doing their job?

Most importantly however, Sides's final conclusion raises the question of the media's role in influencing public opinion. If viewers aren't actually comprehending or using the news provided by the mass media, then they will never have a large effect on influencing public opinion.

The New Conservatism: Don’t Bother With College

The New York Times reported on Rick Santorum’s recent campaigning leading up to the primary coming up this Tuesday.  The article is entitled “The New Conservatism: Don’t Bother With College.”  The tag line of the article says, “Mr. Santorum called President Obama “a snob” for urging students to go to college.”  The article reports that Rick Santorum criticized President Obama’s recent encouragement of students to attend community colleges to pick up specialized skills, for everyone to strive for some form of higher education, and to make college more affordable for everyone. 

My favorite lines of the article states that “As it turns out, Mr. Santorum is concerned that conservative students who attend a four-year college will emerge fully indoctrinated as liberals. He even called colleges “indoctrination mills.” “Oh, I understand why he wants you to go to college,” Mr. Santorum said. “He wants to remake you in his image.”

“Mr. Santorum apparently sees students as easy prey to bearded professors and their dangerous ideas, but all ideas are subject to challenge in college. Some students may emerge more liberal, others more libertarian or conservative; some may lose their faith, or adopt a different one.”

“When his brand of ideas is put to the test, Mr. Santorum seems worried it might not hold up. If this new rant represents the current quality of conservative thinking, he is right to be worried.”

The New York Times does a great job reporting on the subject.  They let Rick Santorum’s word speak for themselves.  Our recent class discussions on socialization and political ideals leads me to see how wrong Rick Santorum is in his assumption that students can be so easily preyed upon when receiving a college education.  As we learned from the Michigan Model our socialization starts early in life with the economic structure, social divisions, and historic pattern we grow up with.  Over time these leads to our group loyalties and value orientations.  Our college years can be formative and can be time that values and beliefs shift and new perspectives can be learned but for student to lose their faith, values, and beliefs that they grew up with is not very likely.  

Obama Apologizing?

http://newsroom.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/27/no-talking-points-presidential-apologies/?iref=allsearch

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2012/02/23/exp-quran-burning-sparks-rage-in-afghanistan.cnn


After the recent events in Afghanistan, President Obama came out and apologized to the Afghan government for the accidental burning of the Quran by American soldiers. Should he really be apologizing for a "accidental" buying of the muslim religious book? Why should he apologize for an accident?

President Obama apologized on behalf of our country for the actions of some of our soldiers. Some American soldiers allegedly put the Quran's in a burning pit, but supposedly didn't intend to burn them as religious documents, whatever that means. The U.S. has announced that it is not sure what it is going to do about the incident, but that there will be actions taken to hold those responsible accountable.

Every republican presidential hopeful has responded strongly to Obama's apology, saying that he should not have apologized at all. The GOP's are all over Obama for his apology. But why is it so bad that he apologized? The fact that American soldiers burned the Muslim holy book is ridiculous, these soldiers are representing America in every action they take. This was an incident that even if it was "accidental" should have never happened. It is outrageous. Before this, the U.S. was mainly hated by the radical Muslims, but in burning the Quran, we have made enemies with many of the modest Muslims as well. Afghanistan is in uproar due to this incident and the Taliban is using this to gain strength. The least the U.S. could do in this situation is apologize for the incident.

The reporter in the first video clearly supports Obama in this situation which is expected because he works for CNN. He states that other presidents have apologized for things just as Obama is doing now. He shows videos of these past presidents apologizing for various reasons and even goes so far as to attack the GOP candidates in saying that which ever one of them is elected, if they are elected, they will have to apologize for things as well. The reporter show his liberal bias and propaganda through the entire video and is not subtle about it at all.

Religious Freedom vs New Health Care Mandate

So, we all know that with the new Health Care Reform implementation, employees of religion-affiliated institutions will be required to have access to birth control coverage. The strict Catholics who do not support the use of contraceptives or any sort of birth control are in an uproar about this because they feel that "their religious freedoms are being violated," blah blah blah. Not that I'm not sensitive to their specific beliefs, but I have been more interested in tracking how the various news outlets have chosen to add their spin to what could be an objective story. I just never thought the news outlets would be so blatant with their slanting and framing of the story.

The Washington Post's coverage of the issue is clearly leftist-- supporting Obama's decision, bringing quantitative polls into the picture that show public support of this, publishing the support of specific convents and other Catholic institutions, and essentially presenting Obama as the fair and compromising Messiah.

Of course, blogs posts from outlets on the other side of the aisle are clearly right-leaning-- opposing Obama's decision, bringing in quantitative data and qualitative interviews with Bishops that show dissent, and essentially presenting Obama as a socialist devil bent on world destruction, one religious freedom at a time.

In class we have been discussing how bias may just be perception. I tend to believe the opposite. Every news outlet is biased in some way and their coverage of stories is no different. I will admit though, it seems that liberal news outlets are a little more balanced in their reporting of all of the facts, but the influence from bias on both sides can be very influential on the public.

We discussed examples in class about the framing of news coverage. One that illustrates a story about an adolescent male in poverty might evoke public feelings of detachment while one that illustrates the same story, but of a county's poverty-stricken population might evoke feelings of concern and an urgency to aid. Similarly, the conservative blog frames the story as though there is great dissent from all Catholics and that President Obama is being insensitive to their religious freedoms by citing that some of the convents viewed his compromise as "insulting." The liberal blog from the Washington Post frames the story so that the Catholic men and women are the victims to the insensitive male Bishops who are doing more to control with their top-down approach to govern the Catholic women's bodies. It illustrates that 57 percent of Catholics support the legislation and presents Obama as being very considerate in his consciousness clauses of the bill.

While the majority of the public remains ignorant of politics and key political events, they could easily read these articles and be significantly influenced-- this is the main point of our discussions thus far in class. Should the media be more objective in their reporting? Should the public rise to the occasion and become the informed and responsible citizens the Framers never thought they could be? I would argue a little of both. The public has an obligation to be informed, but like Jefferson stated, if they don't, it is the job of the institutions to educate them. Are they really doing a sufficient job in presenting balanced media coverage? I highly doubt it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/us/obama-shift-on-contraception-splits-catholics.html?_r=1&ref=contraception

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/02/16/religious-freedom-vs-new-health-care-mandate-dnc-chair-debbie-wasserman-schultz-and-catholic-league’s-bill-donohue-debate/#more-83510

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sarah-oleary/catholic-bishops-contraception_b_1268683.html

Same Story, Same Facts, Completely Different Message

The issue we discussed in class today about the framing of news stories really struck me.  In the Groseclose and Miylo piece we read, they discussed how different news outlets can frame stories in a different way by the titles they use or by the facts they present.   This whole gatekeeper idea (the idea that the news outlets present the facts that best represent the ideological positions of their organizations) seemed to be something totally plausible.  However, being the eternal optimist that I am, I wanted to believe that every news station presented the same facts for their viewers.  But, as we all know, that is simply fantasy.

Nevertheless, I set out to do some research to see what I could find.  Well, wouldn't you know that today happened to be the day that President Obama was releasing his $3.8 trillion budget for the upcoming fiscal year.  What luck!!  The day I set out to do some framing of news stories research, the President just happened to release his budget (keep in mind this budget is probably the most highly charged political document the president could release at this time, and to top it off, its an election year).  So, where did I turn for my news stories?  Well, of course I went to our old friends Fox and MSNBC to see what they had to say about this event.  Well, as you can imagine, Fox was skeptical and MSNBC was confident.  I'll give the headlines as an example:

Fox:

Budget: Deficit Buster or Fuzzy Math?

MSNBC:

Obama releases budget plan: 'We can’t just cut our way into growth'

I won't bore you with a long summary of the articles but, what struck me was how the same story about the budget was framed in entirely different ways. I'll start with something simple, what the document released today should be called.  To Fox, what was released today was a "spending plan."  To MSNBC, it was a "budget."  The Fox story started out by throwing out huge, scary deficit numbers that would frighten any American.  It said things like though the deficit will be cut by $4 trillion over 10 years, the "huge entitlement programs" will add another $6.6 trillion to the deficit over the same time period.  Sounds scary right?  The facts in the Fox article rang as true, however they were all the negative issues surrounding the budget.  MSNBC told a different story.  The MSNBC article never once mentioned the huge deficit numbers that Fox mentioned.  Instead, the article quoted the President and focused on the positives of the budget, facts that were also true, yet more positive.  While Fox told us the deficit now exceeded the GDP, MSNBC told us the deficit to GDP ratio would be at a "sustainable level" by 2018.  Wow! Same news story, accurate facts, completely different message.

Though I have already rambled on for too long I must draw it together in closing.  These articles are a prime example of how the media can spin the stories in a way that suits their interests.  Obviously, I was being naive when I thought that all stories would be the same.  However, I never could have imagined that the same news story could be told in such different ways.  In our time, the media is a powerful machine that is able to put out a story in a way that portrays their ideas and beliefs.  The Fox readers will walk away motivated to oppose the President and fix our ailing government (which will be crippled by the new budget).  The MSNBC readers will be optimistic for the future and come away with a belief in the President.  While we may not be able to quantify the media's ideological bias, it is obviously present.  These stories give us an example that furthers the assertion that the media plays the role of a marketplace.  These articles are tailored to the respective viewers of the respective networks.  I'm not saying there is anything wrong with this, I'm simply saying media outlets do have a bias, ideological and informational, they do play the role of a marketplace, and they definitely have a way of telling the story the way they want it to be told. 

Phew if I would have written anymore, I would have sold it as a book! Sorry for the length guys!!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/13/obama-defends-tax-hikes-proposes-more-job-training-in-new-budget/

http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/12/10389112-obama-budget-pitch-cant-just-cut-our-way-into-growth

Are the poles melting?

This blog by Ezra Klein is especially interesting to me, because I love Bill Clinton. I am an Obama fan (shocker, I know), but Bill Clinton is one of my favorite presidents. I also love Hillary, which may contribute a wee bit to my borderline obsession...who knows?

The post's argument is that, in retrospect, Bill Clinton has proven to be a non-polarizing president.  Many of Clinton's policies, though, were definitely more polarizing than Obama's.  Clinton's healthcare initiatives would currently be heavily criticized (and were upon their passage), as many are even more controversial than certain elements of Obamacare.  Additionally, Clinton's tax rates were higher than anything Obama's administration has even proposed thus far, and he passed the legislation for those tax rates very early on in his first term.  It's obvious that during the times he was passing these policies through, the polarization was very high.  Since Clinton is no longer a "threat to the Republican Party", he is no longer polarizing.  Oh, and the economy was awesome during his presidency, too.

What Ezra Klein is arguing here is that this example could very well also be the case for a not-so-polarizing judgement of Obama's policies later in time.  Once he is no longer a threat to the Republican Party, he will not be viewed as controversial or liberal as he is being perceived as now.  This is only true if the economy recovers, mind you.

I love this post, because it gives us an opportunity to attempt to evaluate exactly how much of an impact the media is having on shaping/influencing public opinion.  The fact that the House is controlled by Republicans and the Senate and Presidency are Democratic obviously also contribute to the polarization of the electorate and public opinion as well, but have Bill O'Reilly and Rachel Maddow gotten to us? Has the availability of the new media through social outlets affected our amount of polarization?

What contributes most in my opinion to polarization is how relevant the issues are which are being evaluated.  Obama's policies are more relevant than Clinton's right now, giving them a higher opportunity to be polarizing.  However, why is the polarization so intense? Is the electorate moving to the extremes, while our policies remain within the normal spectrum? I think this may be so. And I have a hunch the media is contributing to it.