3/14/09
Mass Media: The Strategies and Effects of Propaganda During the 2008 Elections
For decades now, mass media has been the prevalent source of information regarding everything from economics, to health and diet, to science, and everything else that will hold the average American’s attention. The mainstream media is the main well of information about politics and political candidates, and most of it is slanted or biased. It is known that the media chooses sides in politics, but to what extent, how far do they really swing their own personal opinions? The answer is truly concerning. “We are witnessing the change of journalism in America today. Journalism was once a profession of unbiased reportage, but is now a channel of propaganda” (Pagay). Journalism has changed, it cannot survive the same way as it used to, because now it needs to report on more than just what is the news, as the news. Now they dig deeper, looking for stories unrelated to candidates and politics, but still detrimental or favorable to one side or another. Consumers are bombarded by too much information rushing in via the internet and television, so newspapers and magazines have begun sensationalizing all their “news” for better ratings and more readers. Mass media has evolved, and was one of the major deciding factors in the 2008 presidential elections by using public opinion and propaganda to the benefit of one party more than the other.
To understand how propaganda influenced the elections in 2008, you must understand what propaganda is. Simply put, it is information designed to persuade somebody into a particular thought process. Propagandists use many tools to influence thought and perception - often times to subvert truth from reality - which include: symbols, slogans, suggestions, slandering, using connotative language, appealing to pity or emotion, appealing to grandeur, or any other fallacious undertone you can think of. A professional propagandist will use any method of dissemination that is available, advertising is a major method. They also use books, television, movies, posters, billboards, newspapers, magazines, the internet, and Obama just pioneered the usage of social media. The best propagandists know how to make ideas stick in people’s heads, how to make things catchy, and to seem universally appealing.
“You got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda,” words from former president George W. Bush. The campaigns were the top story in every media outlet in 2008. 33% of stories from newspapers across the country were about the campaigns. 35% of online articles were about the campaigns. 49% of the stories on network TV were about them. 59% of radio, and a staggering 76% of cable TV was dedicated to the campaigns. Overall, the 2008 campaigns attributed to 51% of all news stories in the media for the year (PEJ). It was almost impossible to watch a news program without hearing something about a campaign or a candidate. The election was hard to miss. It set many new precedents in mass media and technological platforms - Obama even had campaign ads in nine different video games (Barrett).
If one were to take a broad view of the coverage during the 2008 presidential campaigns, they would see a glaring difference in the candidates. They would see an overwhelming biased towards Obama. This is from a plethora of reasons, but the major one was successful propaganda. Obama spent abundantly more money on the media and television than any other candidate. He spent more than $160 million on television advertising alone, including a $21 million expenditure for one 30-minute infomercial during prime time. It helps that the McCain-Palin campaign was openly anti-media; McCain himself calling The New York Times “a partisan rag,” (Dubner). It is interesting that the Obama campaign spent so much time and money on the media, while the McCain campaign was close to shutting them out all together. The Obama campaign dominated air-time throughout the election season, appealing to more and more people everyday, gaining more and more support everyday, while creating a biased - whether intentionally or not - through the bandwagon effect (Goldenberg).
There is no surprise why McCain had such a vast difference in approval from younger people than Obama did; Obama utilized the outlets that younger audiences gravitate towards. He was the first candidate to have a myspace or a facebook, he ran ads on MTV and VH1, and much more than McCain connected to younger viewers with his rhetoric. Obama had 57% more facebook friends than McCain, he had 39% more subscribers to his youtube channel, he had 33% more visitors to his official website, and he had 39% more total web hours than McCain did during the campaign (Dudley). Those are some intriguing stats, showing a definite favor towards Obama. It could be that since the public was seeing his face everywhere they looked that they were interested in his ideologies and his calls for “change,” but the more likely reason is because he spent so much more money than the other campaigners on online media outlets, and much earlier.
Even before Obama announced his candidacy he had the clambering support of young people. A week prior to his announcement of candidacy, Obama held a rally at George Mason University, this was more than a typical rally though. This rally was not paid for at all by the Obama campaign or philanthropic fund-raisers, but completely organized and self-funded by a facebook group called “Students for Barack Obama,” and it had the look of a mid-october rally (Graham-Felsen). It is astounding that college-aged students could raise the kind of money, and produce such an event with all the pomp and circumstance of a full-fledged donor rally, for a candidate who hadn’t even announced he was running for president. On top of that, the message it sent to other college aged kids obviously had a positive impact on how Obama was viewed in the public eye.
McCain did have his share of the media spotlight. He had more viewers for his acceptance speech in St. Paul than Obama did for his in Denver. Sarah Palin drew considerably more viewers for her Vice Presidency acceptance speech than Joe Biden did for his (Silva). This is an anomaly considering how much more time and resources Obama used on the media and for disseminating his message through technological platforms than McCain did. For a while, in the middle of the campaigns, McCain actually took the lead from Obama, as far as number of hits to his youtube channel. McCain used humor and wit to draw in the viewers with his new attack ads that mocked Hillary Clinton, Obama, and the media itself (Dinan).
Any talk of candidates in the mainstream television media quickly turned questionable based on polarization of the networks themselves, and is where the propaganda really becomes apparent. Of course the major news networks segregated; FOX News, ABC, and the rest of the right-wingers slanting one way, and MSNBC, CNN, and the lefties slanting the other.
Networks have been known to take sides on the political boarder. The companies will put broadcasters and anchors on their networks that have similar political views as the network does. On the left there is Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, and Brian Williams; on the right there is Chris Wallace, Sean Hannity, and Bill O’Reilly. These media outlets are indeed watched by people from the left, the right, and the middle, but many viewers are unable to discern between fact and opinion, and can be influenced by subtle propaganda if not acutely aware of the methods in which it is delivered.
The line between slightly skewed facts and propaganda from media outlets is a very thin one, and in this election was significantly prevalent. Chris Matthews is one of the more prominent left wing voices in the media, and is the host of a political show on MSNBC, “I want to do everything I can to make this new thing work, this presidency work,” Matthews said regarding the Obama campaign (Mason). Anchors usually are supposed to remain unbiased and centered, but more often than not it is clear to see which side they support - the questions they ask their guests is usually the indicator. In this case, Chris Matthews openly chose a side. This in and of itself could potentially sway voters who fall privy to the fallacy of appealing to authority. Not only Chris Matthews, but the whole MSNBC network supported the Obama campaign to the fullest. Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell complained about MSNBC’s gross support of Obama when he said, “It was embarrassing, MSNBC was the official network of the Obama campaign, absolutely embarrassing.” Rendell even called MSNBC “The Tool Shed,” a reference to the tools of propaganda (Calderon).
MSNBC is not the only network that supported Obama, CNN also contributed their own biased to the campaign. CNN continues to add their own touches of support to Obama. They have recently started selling obvious propagandist Obama T-shirts. The shirts read, “Obama raises hand, lifts a Nation,” with the CNN.com logo implanted to the right of this slogan. CNN also says that these shirts are “some of the most historic shirts money can buy” (CNN Shirts). CNN has completely abandoned any notion of impartialness and leads the media-cult called “Obamamania,” (McLeod). This Orwellian kind of Obamamania could potentially ruin any aspect of unbiased media, if it has not been ruined already. It is propaganda at it’s finest, being played out by one of the country’s biggest media outlets.
McCain had his supporters too, even if he was an adversary to the media. FOX supported McCain, with one of his most prominent supporters being Bill O’Reilly, of course.
O’Reilly is either loved or hated by his viewers, but the haters still watch. There is not a whole lot of middle ground with him, and it is clear to see. The way O’Reilly posits his arguments are oft disturbing, grossly over-simplified, and purely propagandist. He consistently uses all the tools of propaganda during his show. A study done of the O’Reilly Factor’s opening segment called “Talking Points,” revealed just how frequently the tools are used just in the first five-minutes. The study found that O’Reilly uses propaganda in one from or another on average 12.91 times per minute. His favorite tool to use is name calling - slandering - average use of 8.88 times per minute, or almost once every seven seconds! O’Reilly also uses glittering generalities - appeals to grandeur - 2.96 times per minute. Some examples of this include referring to coalition forces in Iraq as “the good guys,” and when talking about a brain-dead woman - Terri Schiavo -O’Reilly said that it would “serve the greater good” if she were kept alive artificially (Conway). When the propaganda is this blatant it is easy to see through, and therefore is not as dangerous as the more tacit voices.
FOX News also conducted polls about the campaign throughout, to gather a general idea and census about the general public perception during the course of election season. Most polls ask questions pertaining to candidates’ views and opinions on different subjects and the consensus feeling about those opinions. FOX News’ polls, however, had obvious biased tones disguised as loaded questions. For example, “How much do you think Obama loves America?,” Another poll question was, “Barrack Obama has distanced himself from his former pastor Jeremiah Wright because of the controversial and unpatriotic comments Wright made. How much does it trouble you that Barrack Obama attended Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s church and listened to Wright’s comments for twenty years?” (FOX). A blatant attempt at guilt by association against Obama, which can create a skewed sense of character, and in turn a skewed view of the poll results.
Those questions were obviously slanted towards the negatives of Obama, and are grossly propagandist. FOX was even caught flashing an image of a smiling McCain that many psychologists said was an attempt to use subliminal messaging. Subliminal messaging is a great use of propaganda, it is so effective that it is illegal in the UK, Australia, and here in the United States (Watson).
Obama’s campaign wasn’t limited to the internet and television though, but included media biased from newspapers and magazines, who ran heavy articles favoring Obama. TIME Magazine even named Barrack Obama it’s “Man of the Year.” TIME was just one magazine that had the now iconic Shepard Fairey created image of Obama gracing it’s covers around the same time. McCain received his fair share of front page exposure as well, he graced the covers of the New York Times and The Washington Post a few times (Rutenberg). Of course, the lesser known candidates did not receive as much coverage in the media, which led to poor turnouts at primaries and caucuses, and inevitably dropping out of the race. This shows that the more media exposure, the better a candidate is suspected to be doing in the polls, as well as in the campaign overall (Issenberg). Obama dominated every facet of media exposure during the elections, and McCain struggled to keep up, doing every thing right after Obama did it. It seemed, at least from a mass media standpoint, that McCain was always a step behind Obama, be it how many facebook friends, or how many commercials and large-market cover-pages Obama had compared to McCain.
These giant media outlets gave their full support to a candidate, it was not possible to keep that bias out of their lineup of shows. CNN sold T-shirts with Obama propaganda blatantly on them. Hosts of television shows and movie stars gave their support - generating a faulty use of authority - Obama definitely succeeded in “cracking” the media. McCain wasn’t the only loser to Obama in 2008, Hillary Clinton struggled against him as well, irritating many Clinton supporters, and Hillary herself. “The Clintonites are fundamentally correct in their complaint that she has been flying throughout this campaign into a headwind of media favoritism for Obama,” (Harris).
Obama won the 2008 presidential campaign, and is now the President of the United States of America, and says “It’s time for change.” How much credit does the media deserve for this? Some say all of it. One thing is for sure, and that is Obama mastered the media-relations game. He reached many different groups since he was seen on so many different platforms. Propaganda the primary mover of public opinion, which concerned some astute viewers, but affected many more. All in all this was one for the books; this campaign was unlike any other, and will shape the way the future campaigns will be ran. Some lessons that can be learned from this campaign are to not be swung, make your own decisions and choices, watch a network with opposing views just to stay balanced, stay vigilant.
Works Cited
Barrett, Devlin. “Ads For Obama: ‘It’s in the Game’” MSNBC Online. 14 Oct. 2008. 18 March 2009. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27184857/
Calderon, Michael. MSNBC - Obama Propaganda Mill. Hickey Site. 25 Aug. 2008. 20 Feb. 2009. http://hickeysite.blogspot.com/2008/08/msnbc-obama-propaganda- mill-eddie.html
Dinan, Stephen. “McCain Takes Lead on Youtube Hits.” 7 Aug 2008. The Washington Times. 17 March 2009.http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/07/mccain-takes- leadon-youtube-hits/
Dubner, Steven. “McCain, the Media, Money, and Montesinos (and Obama too).” Freakonomics. 13 Oct. 2008. The New York Times. 18 March 2009. http:// freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/mccain-the-media-money-and- montesinos-and-obama-too/
Dudley, Eric. “President Election Results Online- Obama vs. McCain.” Marketer Insight. 30 Oct. 2008. 17 March 2009. http://www.marketerinsight.com/online-marketing/campaigns-web-gain-support/
Graham-Felsen, Sam. “Obama’s Impressive Youth Routes.” 15 Feb. 2007. The Nation. 17 March 2009. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070305/graham-felsen
Goldenberg, Susan. “Final Days of Fight Will See Obama Spend, Spend, Spend.” The Guardian. 11 Oct. 2008. 15 March 2009. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/11/uselections2008-barackobama
Harris, John; Jim Vandehei. “Obama’s Secret Weapon: The Media.” Politico. 18 April 2008. 16 March 2009. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9718.html
Issenberg, Sasha. “Propaganda of the Year.” Political Intelligence. The Boston Globe. 17 Dec. 208. 20 Feb. 2009. http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/12/propaganda_of_t.html
McLead, Julie. “CNN, News front cult called Obamamania.” How the News Became Propaganda. Canada Free Press. 30 Jan. 2009. 20 Feb. 2009. http:// canadafreepress.com/ index.php/article/8028
Pagay, Sue. “Propaganda in America: The 2008 Presidential Campaign.” News Flavor. 28 March 2008. 20 Feb. 2009. http://www.newsflavor.com/Politics/US-Politics/Propaganda-in-
America-The-2008-Presidential-Campaign.100692
PEJ. “Candidate Websites, Propaganda or News?-A PEG STudy” Election 2008. Journalism.org. 12 July 2007. 20 Feb. 2009. http://www.journalism.org/node/6370
Silva, Mark. “McCain vs. Obama: GOP won TV Viewers.” Young American’s Documenary. 5 Sep. 2008. Pat Dollard. 15 March 2009. http://patdollard.com/2008/09/mccain-vs-obama-gop-won-tv-viewers/
No comments:
Post a Comment