Political leaders have a love/hate relationship with the media. They love getting support and the ability to speak to their constituents and set the agenda, they hate being scrutinized, investigated, and antagonized in public. As a result many have used used technology to circumvent the media in order to talk directly to the people. This strategy is generally referred to as "Going Public." All politicians in the modern era do this to one degree or another and some do it much more effectively than others.
One modern version of going public occurs everyday on Twitter. Take a look at who is active on twitter and who is not. My guess is that most of the national politicians that you know are tweeting pretty regularly. You can also take a look at how politicians use good old facebook here along with going to individual politicians sites.
Finally take a look at how President Obama goes public all the time. You may or may not be aware of the fact that the President makes a weekly address each week (like a modern day fireside chat). Take a look at his latest one (and others if you want) here (click on photos and videos on the top left then look for the most recent weekly address). You can also look around at other ways that he tried to directly connect with the people by going over and around the media.
After looking through much of this use the following questions as a jumping off point for your discussion:
- What do you think are particularly successful examples of going public which are being utilized today by congress? Other politicians? Political organizations? Obama?
- What do you think of the weekly address? Why might this be a good/bad strategy?
- How might you advise politicians who are trying to use the strategy of going public?
I loved Obama's appearance on Between Two Ferns. He needed younger people to buy into using healthcare.gov and did a great job appealing to them with humor instead of trying to preach or lecture. Were the healthcare.gov commercials circumventing the media? If so, i think they did a good job targeting that younger audience. Most of the commercials I saw were during Hawks and Bulls games and even during South Park and other shows on Comedy Central. They tapped into the younger demographic that normally wouldn't care to examine Obamacare by meeting them in their own arena.
ReplyDeleteI certainly agree with Robert. Admittedly, I only just recently watched the Obama appearance Between Two Ferns as I already knew the details of healthcare.gov and was too busy at the time of the controversy. Promoting the Affordable Care Act's HealthCare.gov to young citizens on Bewteen Two Ferns was a logical move by President Obama. Evaluating this action as a waste of time is simply ridiculous regardless of one's personal feelings toward the Affordable Care Act. With so many citizens not knowing that the Affordable Care Act and Obama care are actually the same thing, I feel the move was very strategic and imperative for the President to go public with his policy "baby", if you will. Critics argued that he should should have been doing something more important than talking to Zach Galifianakis. Work and play often do not accompany one another, but when the opportunity arises for a strategic work/play hybrid such as this, informed citizens will recognize the value of this strategic communication. The Huffington Post reported, not surprisingly, that older citizens were disappointed with the appearance. Humor is rarely a common language between individuals, just look at the way Joan Rivers is received. Mixing politics and humor is doubling the conflict that political debate already suggests. Both comedy and politics imply personal taste, and not everyone is going to like it. Supportive or not, a waste of time or not, people we're talking the next day about Obama, Zach, and healthcare.gov. A job well done Mr. President.
ReplyDelete-Austin
I definitely agree with both Robert and Austin and think that it even goes a step further than the President himself to include politicians of course but also the First Lady. In fact, while Obama himself was going on Between Two Ferns, Michelle Obama has also gone on nontraditional sources (Late Night With Jimmy Fallon) to promote her "Let's Move" campaign (you can watch it here if you want: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOK4aBYNh3s).
ReplyDeleteWhile this show might have slightly different demographics than Between Two Ferns, the idea of going public and appealing to younger audiences through humor is the same. Granted, not everyone will think that this is as successful as others. However, I think these examples have the same common thread of appealing through humor rather than serious appeals that won't grab the attention of the people that certain messages are supposed to be reading.
Indeed, work and play can combine and create something effective.
Ashley
The concept of "going public" is one that for many reasons I attempt to avoid, as within recent years this has typically meant a politician going on either a popular show to assert either a plug for something being done in their professional setting or as a way of trying to establish a common image. I personally find this to be detracting from the discourse on the theory driving policy, instead attempting to replace it with personality and charisma. I understand how vital this is within a democratic society where people vote with their guts and hearts a strong percentage of the time, but it is not something I personally wish to get caught up within, preferring to instead keep to my head. The amount of calculation that goes into appearances is immense, and I think a fantastic satire of this can be found in this video:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCzI521sgqE
I feel that a successful attempt of "going public" would be a combination of getting personal but staying professional. There should not be more of one than an other, because by balancing the two, the intended message is still put across and their credibility is still standing. The aftermath of Obama's "selfie" received an overload of negative backlash because the President was seen more of an average person and less professional. While I thought it was okay and cute, we can see that that is not what the public wants. This is not to say that the President should not get personal with the public, but there are limits that should be put in order to keep his professional demeanor. I like Obama's weekly address because it is a way for him to personally connect with the public in a personal but appropriate way that gets his message across and still exert his authority in a non-intimidating way.
ReplyDeleteWhen congressmen use the media to be interviewed after having being in session, they are successfully introducing their goals as politicians to their citizens, as well as promoting themselves to a higher level. Using Twitter allows for the politicians to connect directly with their base, and is a smart way to continue momentum for their popularity when not running for office.
ReplyDeleteThe weekly address is a great idea, but few people watch it. In the past, they seemed to have more power and were respected more on when they were on the radio or nightly newscasts, but now, releasing a video on Youtube weekly is not going to be seen. The internet is saturated with enough videos and media as it is, and the public are likely going to pass over a 15 minute address from the president that in the grand scheme of things not do much.
I would advise politicians to use twitter and facebook not just as a way to disseminate information, but to also create a dialogue between them and their constituents. I would say that it is important to reply to constructive comments from people, and show that not only are you interested in getting your message out, but being involved with the public on an intimate level.
I believe that "going public" can be very beneficial to a politician. It allows for a message to be heard by a larger audience and a greater number of demographics. I also enjoyed President Obama's appearance on Between Two Ferns and felt as though he was connecting to and engaging with people who would generally not go looking for information on the Affordable Care Act. Although some people criticized him, he was able to get people talking about the Affordable Care Act, which is what he set out to do. There was constant news coverage and sharing of the video, which helped reach even more people than those who watch Between Two Ferns.
ReplyDeleteThe advice I would give politicians about "going public" would be to continue to use social media. For a project I had to do for a previous political science, I emailed Senator Harmon. Now I receive daily emails from his campaign (I haven't found out how to get off his mailing list). I think that social media sites, like Twitter, are a less obtrusive way to spread your message, while also requiring you to get to the main point with the character limit. Overall, I think "going public" can be very successful for politicians, if it is done in the right way.
I think going public is an essential strategy of politicians today. I follow several politicians on facebook and twitter and I find their comments and posts incredibly interesting. Personally, I do not have the time to look up the way my Congressman votes on every bill that goes through the house, or more specifically, I do not have time to find out what issues are most important to my Congressman. Mike Quigley regularly posts informative (thought slightly biased) articles and websites that relate to his current projects and voting habits in office. I often learn about issues I had no idea were evolving in my district through his page.
ReplyDeleteOn a national level, I think the democratic party and its political organizations has an incredible handle on going public. Just today, I got an email from Barack Obama himself asking for monetary support for the democratic party. While I know this is really apolitical organization using a clever sending address header, I think it is a great way to connect with people on a personal level and make them feel involved in the electoral process in ways that would otherwise be impossible. (As a side note that same organization has also sent me emails as Joe Biden for similar purposes).
Before watching the weekly address, I watched the anti-rape video which has gone viral on the front page of the White House website. From the start, I correlate that video with social media and being connected. I think this is an excellent use of going public. The weekly address this week seems more in tune with what the public would like government to address than the news networks this week. Obama speaks about raising the minimum wage. I think these weekly addresses are brilliant because they accessible by everyone, everywhere (that has internet), and at the leisure of the public. This gives the public a chance to hear about policy and issues directly from the president in a manner that is leisurely and more effective in terms of understandable communication.
The entire strategy of going public again is essential for politicians today to remain relevant and reach the maximum amount of voters and supporters. The examples I looked at for this post were relevant and done in a good way. This is not always the case though and I think moving forward, we should be wary about how public our government becomes. It is essential that our politicians remain politicians. While it is nice to feel like they are your comrades and the “every man” that they would like us to believe, that is not necessarily the qualities a good leader should have. We vote for politicians ideally because they are more capable than we are at analyzing complex issues and acting on them. They should be able to separate themselves from the public to do their jobs to the best of their ability.
Every time politicians appear on popular talk shows or post photos of themselves with other people or post photos of their families, I always seem to hear some kind of comment that politicians are acting like celebrities. I don't see it that way. I had never heard of that argument in the first place until Obama ran for president in 2008, and was that argument more about the media talking about Obama in a positive light or was it about simply seeing Obama everywhere on social media, news outlets, print journalism and tv commercials. With that said, not only was it surprising that people made the argument but that they were so surprised and even angry by the fact that yes, maybe politicians are glorified or their actions are exaggerated with the lens of the media. Politicians are public figures, and everything they do and say is up for grabs. If a politician has a history of making racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic comments, I want to know who could potentially represent me as a citizen. If there's a story about how politicians get absurdly expensive hair cuts every month, it's going to put into question how much the working class (which I am working class) will be present in his/her economic decisions. However, I don't want to hear about Michelle Obama's target dress, but I would never be surprised that that detail would become a point of interest for the media.
ReplyDeleteSomeone made a point about going public with as much professionalism as possible, and I'm not sure that's possible because people's lives are messy. Politics are messy because everyone feels that they have so much at stake. With guest appearances on the Colbert Report, The Daily Show, The Tonight Show, Ellen, and even Between Two Ferns, that has become just as integral in going public than just launching a website. I don't think Obama or any politician qualifies as a celebrity, but they definitely use celebrities from the entertainment world to help with their issues and causes. I would never say that it's an in depth discussion, or that people with then be able to make an informed decision about where they stand on whatever is being plugged, but the introduction of those topics is enough to make people responsible to do further research.
From a strategic point of view, I think the president's weekly address is beneficial in that it give the president and his staff entire control of the message, which is crucial when a politician goes public.
ReplyDeleteThe most recent weekly address was about minimum wage and the president opened up with "In my State of the Union Address, I talked about pizza." This is a great example of the president fine tuning what he says in order to reach his audience directly. Pizza is not a complicated topic, neither are pizza places, but if the president had opened up with "This week, I'm going to talk about minimum wage," it would have turned some viewers away from the rest of the video. Seeing that only 25k people watched the April 26th address, it can be easily inferred that the White House probably wants to hang on to every viewer possible.
Also, I think it's fascinating that people can reply directly to the White House below the video in the comments section. This pulls the public in so close, closer than anyone could have ever imagined. As of right now, there are only 525 comments-- the president could personally call each person that commented and respond to whatever they chose to post, I think that's an amazing amount of possible control that the president and his staff holds.
I think that President Obama and his allies have done a good job of "going public" to try and get people to register for Obamacare. There have been ads everywhere and every time President Obama makes a speech I feel like he throws in a line about registering. His twitter talks about it a lot and I believe there is even a special twitter specifically for news on registering for health care and how to do it. I feel that the weekly address is a good idea and a nice way for the President to communicate with people without the filter of the media. However I do not think most young Americans listen to the radio, so it may not be an effective way to reach them. It is however good for reaching other Americans. I would advise politicians who are "going public" to hire a professional to handle all of the social media accounts, especially if the candidate is not very familiar with it. A simple mistake could end up becoming a big deal on the internet and garner a lot of negative attention.
ReplyDelete1. I think the Obama administration would be the most current and successful example of going public in the past couple years I can think of. In general I think it has been successful because it allows more people access to our political discourse, and furthermore focuses on areas where young people are.
ReplyDelete2. In theory I like the weekly address because it keeps the president in discussion with the American people, however it's basically just talking points. I would prefer something similar to the Prime Ministers questioning like in british parliament
3. Be kind, be courteous, avoid overexposure and sending naked pictures of yourself
The best way for political organizations to make their direct appeals to their selected audience is through the strategy of going public, which makes it a definite positive political strategy to enforce as often as a week or even more. Simultaneously, I believe it is losing its effectiveness and getting more difficult due to the many other ways of technological advances for people to get access to anything that may persuade them to a certain standpoint, like just cable television, which in turn makes the Presidents request more network time. Consequently, I also believe that going pubic shows a sign of weakness as much as it could benefit whatever organization when you can't win or gain attention by any other means, it's traditionally what most people resort to doing. So playing Devil's Advocate, it has its pros and cons, so whatever politicians seek to do this, I would say to ensure that there is a long term advantage stemming from whatever tactics are used.
ReplyDeleteI think it’s a great way to reach out to citizens and inform them of what is going on in our government. It is an effective method to interact with and encourage citizens to participate in our political system. Some political parties, organization, and politician have not fully embraced or not figured out how to properly and effectively use the tools to go public.
ReplyDeleteI think the weekly address is a good idea but not an effective strategy. Personally I am aware of the weekly address however I do not visit the site for information about what the administration is doing or planning to do. I think the public first reaction is to look to the media for information about the administration’s strategy and plans. They assume, including me, that the media can filter or decode the government’s actions and present what is really happening and what the intentions are.
If I was advising a politician about how to effectively use technology to go public, I would first see what works for the politician. Finding out what social media and traditional outlets work and which do not. For example, if a politician has a twitter account but has a few followers then I would urge the incumbent to focus using another form to communicate with the public such as live or recorded appearances. The goal is getting the incumbents name and strategy out to the public with whatever tool is more effective.
I think that "going public" is a great way for a politician to rise in popularity, especially when running for elected office or trying to push legislation while in office. The media can be a great tool to sway the public opinion in both elections as well as legislation.
ReplyDeleteMore recently, as discussed throughout this blog, President Obama appeared on Between Two Ferns with Zach Galifinakis. I'm not sure how I felt about this. The president was obviously trying to push health care and get as many people to sign up through healthcare.gov throughout the remaining few weeks left. The series of appearences obviously helped his initiative, however it may have hurt his image of professionalism, which is definitely something the president and his staff had to consider. Obama has been criticized throughout his presidency for trying to be a celebrity, and that appearance definitely did not help him drift away from that image.
Ultimately, going public is a useful tool for a politician, however there are also negatives that go along with going public too much, especially on comedy programs.
One last thing, it is clear that going public is a tool politicians use many years before a presidential election to attempt to attract the public eye. I remember from 2009-2012 I always used to see Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty, Herman Cain, Michelle Bachman and more all over the news, mostly appearing on Fox and CNN, but it is used as a tactic to gradually become more of a prominent voice in the media long before it is appropriate to announce candidacy, which is why I am confused Hillary Clinton hasnt been all over the media as much as I would expect, while guys like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul are on every time I flip on the TV.
I believe that "going public" could be a great thing when it beneficial to the common good of the people. I believe that we have gotten so tech savvy that it almost essential that most politicians start to adopt the concept of social media. Like majority of my classmates have stated the Obama administration has done a partially good job at "Going public" through the use of social media. When I looked at the weekly addressed I thought it was a great idea, it was a great way to go public. I believe that social networks are a great way for politicians to advocate causes because we all have gone social. Social networks allow us to share articles and other information with a click of a button, so essentially we share stories and news information that others may not have come across. But I would also agree that there always need to be couth and professionalism when it comes to going public.
ReplyDeleteIt is pretty obvious to say that when going public, you need to be aware of your surroundings. As we just recently saw with Donald Sterling, NBA owner of the LA Clippers, he began saying racial slurs and misrepresented himself. In terms of Twitter or any social media, it is partially your duty to address anything that will not bring a negative connotation, or anything that will potentially harm someone. With that being said, I believe that going public is a very nice tool that politicians have the chance to do. There is so much potential with social media, but it is up to politicians to use it wisely. Lastly, in terms of the weekly address, I personally do not think it is beneficiary simply because I can get updates faster than him. With the apps nowadays, breaking news is at the tip of my fingers. So to me, it is just another failed strategy that is just killing time....
ReplyDelete