The media played a very important role in the 2012 presidential race including many major political media events such as:
The leaked Mitt Romney 47% video
The First Presidential Debate
The Vice Presidential Debate
The Second Presidential Debate
The Third Presidential Debate
There were millions of dollars and thousands of people working very hard for both campaigns to affect mediated media messages of the issues, the election, and their opponent, as well as direct media messages sent to their supporters and the public at large through:
Social Media: Obama's Facebook and Twitter, Romney's Facebook and Twitter
Or take a look at some of the Campaign Ads
After browsing some of these sites, start a discussion about the role of media and use of media in the race using the prompts below as a starting point. Use the 2012 election in order to look forward to the upcoming elections. Feel free to post links to other information or examples that you think is relevant (blogs, other ads, etc...).
- What were the most effective uses of media conducted by campaigns during the 2012 election?
- What media strategies should be used by campaigns to help win in the future?
- Who is in the driver's seat, the media or the campaigns?
Regarding question 3, I would say that the media is overwhelmingly in the driver's seat over campaigns. No matter how well a candidate hits the streets, the media can completely derail their campaign with a single report. It doesn't even have to be true. Just planting a tiny seed of doubt can turn thousands, or even millions, of voters to the other side. How many voters did Obama lose with the speculation of him being born in Kenya or being a Muslim? If Romney wasn't such a jackass those reports could have had a deciding effect. Just look at the Daily Show video on Ron Paul. The guy makes some pretty solid points and promotes some out-of-the-norm, but rational, policies. He'll never be a serious candidate for President though because he's been shunned by the media. I think candidates also get a ton of their campaign financing from people whose only knowledge of them comes from media attention. Favorable and consistent coverage can bring in favorable and consistent donations and vice versa. The media tells us who is relevant and who we should pay attention to. They have enormous power over elections, much more than campaigns.
ReplyDeleteCitizen journalism really came into play during the 2012 election. I think very few liberal voters will forget the 47% video captured by a bartender attending a Romney event. This is watchdog journalism without a middleman like traditional medias. It is an example of citizens protecting other citizens who believe that health care is a human right, for example. This video was a prime demonstartion of just how effectively a camera can capture and affect political outcomes. The video caused quite a stir in the media, and the bartender is hailed as a hero in the right circles. Citizens often feel voiceless sin the greater political sphere, which explains such little voting turn out, yet here is an example of citizens making waves in a political system that many feel they can’t effect.
ReplyDeleteI think media campaigns are leaning toward entertainment. Many citizens in the United States feel disenchanted with regular hard news programs and turn to satire or entertainment television to help inform their decisions. Right, wrong, or indifferent, politicians have noticed. The political game hasn’t changed, it’s just evolving.
Who is in the driver's seat, the media or the campaigns? The media certainly has more power than the campaigns. With simulcasting, multiple news mediums can project the same story without the blessing of any politician’s campaign. There is little limitation on what can be shown in terms of political criticism and celebration, and this is this helps keep the power in the hands of media players.
Although I believe that because of voter party entrenchment is a reality and people will seek out media sources the will give them the message they wish to hear limiting the extent to which media had an ability to swing the undecided one way or another I recognize the power it had in shaping the way in which the politicians themselves approached one another. A particularly devastating incident was Mitt Romney's "47%" remark, which after constantly discussed in the media cycle left portions of the voting population with a sour taste in their mouth.
ReplyDeleteMedia campaigns are now a very important aspect of public relations for politicians, but the importance and effect of them is too individual to provide for a fruitful analysis at large, resulting from individualistic personalities being better suited towards certain styles of media engagement. Hillary Clinton, for all of her popularity within the democratic party rank and file could not possibly replicate Obama's showcase of personality and charisma, nor would she definitively want to. Politicians are concerned with their personal brand value, trying to keep their image from being blended with that of others so as to maintain popular recognition.
For this reason no one is in control of this relationship, it is a mutual tug of war on identity, with constant re-branding and re-imaging these two actors feed on one another to create a type of resonance machine propelling both towards their own ends.
"Ashley Surinak"
ReplyDeleteI agree with everything said above, especially when it comes to the media's enormous role in elections as they serve as the driving force regarding who gets attention, who doesn't get attention, and what kind of attention that they get. Just by looking at the Facebook Pages of the candidates, you can see that the 2008 election was driven by social media. Obama's page has 40 million likes; Romney's 11 million; and George W. Bush, 3.3 million. This is a huge discrepancy not only between the former president and what were the current candidates, but a discrepancy that points to important demographic differences that you wouldn't realize by just watching any news program.
However, I think that it's important to note, as Robert T. did that the personality of the candidate makes a HUGE difference when it comes to social media mobilization in today's world. Obama's charisma was able to shine through whereas Romney's approach to gaining votes was decidedly different, especially because he was mobilizing older, wealthier candidates. So, it's not the case that social media will work for everyone, regardless of what type of effort is put forth.
For the future, I think that this points to what the Republican Party has said all along where they recognize that to win elections, they need to change their approach. This would mean adopting a stance that would appeal to different racial and age demographics as otherwise, they alienate large portions of the population. In terms of strategy, this might mean that the next Republican candidate needs to attempt to drive home a social media campaign like Obama did. However, this would largely depend on the person and whether are not they are the right fit for social media.
In my opinion, I think the media is in the driver's seat. In class we talked about how politicians and the media have an adversarial relationship. That they both need each other but often have conflicting goals. If the media does not pay attention to a campaign then that politician has no coverage and if politicians refuse to disclose any information to the media then they wont have anything to put out to the public. However, I do feel that the media has the upper hand in this relationship. Taking a look at the 2012 election and the leaked Mitt Romney video of the 47% took a negative toll on his campaign. I don't know if its because I am really into politics but every time I see the number 47%, whether it is associated politically or not, Mitt Romney automatically comes to mind. My point is to say that a simple gesture of the media exposing a video of a politician being at fault can be remembered forever and directly associated to their campaign and everything they do further on from that point. The media has the driver's seat in this relationship because I feel that the media can choose their exposure either it being negative or positive which puts fear in the politicians, thus making them, for the most part, respect the media.
ReplyDeleteCharles Terzich
ReplyDeleteMy opinion is that the media is often the student driver that is looking for guidance from the campaigns. Like any student at 15, they act up and love drama. However, there is a relationship of guidance from an adult (ie: campaign). While the media can choose who is going to get airtime and who will not, it’s the campaign’s job to then incentivize the media by either giving access through exclusive interviews, videos, photos, pre-speeches notes, etc. Basically, the campaign’s job is to be the cool parents.
I think we're looking at this a bit outdated. The 47% was an example of the older model becoming less important. It wasn't the media, but a bartender that shot that footage. In the near future, it will be less about the campaign and more about the video camera in your pocket. Once this can be fully blown, the media will look less for guidance from the campaign and more from better-organized professional news busters looking for the next major story. The freelancer can often be more effective and has fewer barriers. Their sole job is to find the biggest story that will result in a large paycheck whereas the media’s main job is to stay relevant to viewers and readers.
This is where social media and online collectives come into play. There is data being collected about you, especially because Facebook and Twitter only exist to sell your information and to categorize it by the segment you fall within to advertisers. Campaigns won't need to babysit the media. Rather, they will make social media movements seem organic and reach out to individuals in a more systematic and automatic way by understanding your recent tweets or wall postings and understanding the information you input into these systems. When you fill out your profile on Facebook, you're telling marketers exactly what you like and what you don't like. Campaigns will use this more in the future once our current elderly generation pass on.
Obviously the 2008 and 2012 campaigns were one for the books. I would have to say that the most effective uses of media during the campaign would have to be the nontraditional alternatives. I'm talking about the interviews that they know will definitely air, the way they try to gain young adults' votes, photos, etc. It is often times difficult to grab all the spotlight in the media, and it is really in their discretion to hand out spotlight, however, you just have to be the cool kid on the block that people want to be curious about.
ReplyDeleteIn the future, I would definitely say all social medias and internet tools are a lot more helpful than people think. As we just recently saw, Joe Biden finally joined the instagram world, and one of the first photos he decides to post is a picture with President Obama! Everyone talked about it, and it was something that could strategically help in the long run. Many people have some type of social media account, and many use that to know what is going in the world. So I believe it's important to use during the campaigns.
I believe the the media is the in the driver's seat. As much as some people try to do crazy stuff or have a scandal, the media determines what can and cannot be displayed during certain times and days. The media knows what will grab the viewers' attention, and if in their opinion is it not newsworthy, then they will not display it.
I think one of the most influential things that the news does in elections is very detrimental. They do not let people forget even the slightest of slip ups. Little slip ups to do always add up to the candidate not being worthy of presidency. I am talking of such over-quoted sayings as “kill big bird’ and “binders full of woman”. While people are so hasty to remember these quotes they might not even remember that the big bird quote was actually Romney making a joke about unnecessary government spending and the realization that this country does not have an endless bank account. And the binders “full of woman” quote was used in the context of making sure there is true equal opportunity employment in this country. I think this is a mis-use of media power to slander a candidate just because it is funny and catches attention. This same concept does not apply to such sound bites as “you didn’t build that” and “It’s not my job to care about 47%” those are true statements of character that should be known. The media abuse candidates that have awkward wording.
ReplyDeleteThis has always happened and I believe it has always been wrong. Even though I wasn’t even alive during the time, I still know Dan Quale accidently said “A zebra doesn’t change its spots.” These little slip ups do not total to the true positions of candidates and immorally can change the result of the election.
I think that the media and campaigns take turns in the driver seat. I agree with Charles that the media uses information they receive from the campaigns, but the media is also very influential on their own. The media has the ability to shape and label a candidate as they see fit. And majority of the time, those labels stick. Although most of the time they are opposing each other, the 2012 election made it clear that the media and campaigns need each other.
ReplyDeleteI think the best media strategy that future campaigns should use is to try to reach as many people as possible through your own social media. By doing so, it ensures that the information you want to get out does and voters are able connect with you in a more personal way. That way, when other media outlets have stories on the candidate, the voters he or she has already connected with through social media may not be as easily influenced.
I think that the media is clearly in the drivers seat with regards to campaigns and how the media is used. Campaigns generally respond to new forms of media, not create their own new outlets. Campaigns are constantly trying to respond in the most "popular" way on social media outlets and other form of dissemination. The media can basically come up with any form of outlet and the campaigns will respond in turn and incorporate it into their strategy, especially if it is very popular. Additionally, the campaigns respond to stories the media puts out there, and they can drive a narrative about a candidate/campaign and force the candidate to respond. An example of this is the Reverend Wright story from 2008 or Romney's 47% comments from the last election. The media set the agenda for the week by airing these comments and the campaigns were forced to respond and craft new messages. This shows the power of the media.
ReplyDeleteThe best media strategies for the future are pretty straightforward. Possibly most important is increasing social media presence, because as we talked about in class social media is no longer being used by young people, the old people are the fastest growing group on Facebook, and they love using it and sharing stories. This is going to revolutionize the way campaigns get their messages across the country. Also the campaigns should "go public" more often in order to get their message directly to the people without the filter of the media.
The one effective use of media conducted in the 2012 election that sticks out the most for me was the Obama campaign capitalizing on the internet and social media. The Obama campaign was able to use the Internet and social media more effectively than the Romney campaign by reaching out to more voters and donors. The main pillars for managing a successful campaign are to create an image, promote clear messages on issues, receive the most donations and lastly to send all three to as many potential voters as possible. The past two presidential elections, the Obama campaign has been able to trump the challengers with these new tools. The strategies are the same but the methods have changed. This is the future for upcoming elections.
ReplyDeleteI think neither the campaigns nor the media are in the driver seat. Instead they are both in a two seated bicycle. They need each other to function during election years. The campaigns need the media to reach out to potential voters and donors. The media needs something to report and report whatever the viewers are demanding. Technically they can function with one person on the two seated bicycle, but it would be a lot easier if the other hopped on.
As political science students we are considered to be more invested in the political process than the average American in the way that we will follow a campaign and research all of a candidates agenda and position on certain issues. As a political science student who is probably less invested than most of my classmates I know the impact that media has on my decision making process. Needless to say, the media controls elections. The campaign can only do so much but a successful campaign relies on the media coverage that it gains along the way. If the media decides that they want one candidate to win over another I guarantee you it would be near impossible for that candidate to lose.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that the candidate with the most funding is the candidate with the most media coverage. In some cases, where a candidate has become a celebrity such as in Barrack Obama's case, the candidate does not have to put as much effort into gaining media attention because he is already who the viewers want to see. That is the important thing when it comes to media coverage, what will gain traction with viewers. I feel like campaign strategy going forward is going to have to focus on becoming the hot commodity that will gain media attention because it will lead to free advertising, which is extremely important in a time where campaign funding is as high as it has ever been.
The most effective uses of media seem to be online engagement. With more and more people going online it makes sense that they would work so well. Obviously traditional outlets did well with older voters, but I could see those numbers dwindling in the future. I think the use of internet outreach has to be central in all future campaigns, and if the conservatives remain sluggish to adopt these avenues, they will suffer the continued consequences. Ultimately I think the media are driving these elections.
ReplyDeleteThe most effective uses of media used by the Obama administration in the 2012 elections was the use of the internet and social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter, and by doing this he blew his opponents McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012 out of the water and won those elections pretty decisively. From the get go Obama’s target were the young people of the country, who are the majority, but vote the least. Romney used social media sites as well, but he didn’t use them effectively like Obama did, and also he didn’t appeal to the American youth the way Obama did.
ReplyDeleteThe media strategies that should be used in the future should be the effective use of social media, and to stay up to date on the newest innovations of the ever-evolving media universe.
I believe that the media is in the drivers seat, because the media shapes the views that the average Joe has on a candidate, and issues. So if candidate wants to be liked by the public to win an election, he must befriend the media, to help him/her in their campaign.
As someone else mentioned, I think that citizen journalism played a major role in how campaigns constructed their strategies. All of a sudden, smartphones and youtube are being used as tools to catch any misstep and replay it for the world again and again. The ability for campaigns to target these gaffes is something that I think really stuck with people when going to the polls in November. This platform that technology has granted them will be one to watch in the coming presidential election, in regards to the way it is used as an offensive strategy, but also how it might check the actions of the candidates.
ReplyDeleteI think that Media is inherently in the drivers seat, because it controls what information the public consumes. It essentially filters whatever strategy the campaigns utilize. Proof of this exists in the media's ability to shut out Ron Paul and delegitimize his candidacy. Because of this, I think that going forward, it is in campaigns' best interest to either force the media to take interest in their campaign by making their actions newsworthy or they should begin finding other outlets to get their message, whether by going public or continuing to utilize the internet as a means of direct communication.
An effective use of the media during the 2012 presidential campaign is sometimes the things that either campaign had the least control over. When it comes to complete control, yes the internet and social media for Obama were second to none, and while it was kind of old news by 2012 as opposed to 2008, it was still effective. Yet, when the candidate's true colors come out for either side, it can be annoying but the media latches on to things and will not let go until the next thing it can latch onto. Matthew DiCarlo just talked in his post about the soundbites that were on loop on the television news stations, and while yes, for the most part they were repeated without context for most of the time, but I think that more than likely they were on loop because they were absurd, and the media wasn’t going to let that go. Getting rid of PBS claiming to save money is like fixing a leak when your house is flooding. And arguing that you have stacks of resumes from women does not mean they’re getting hired, does not mean they’re getting paid the same for the same job as men, and it doesn’t mean that they’re guaranteed a harassment free environment. This is for any claim and not just Mitt Romney. While it certainly removes the public from a larger picture of the candidate’s collective stances and policies, it is also somewhat indicative of what pieces are going to resonate with people. This wasn’t just television news, this was citizens hashtagging their hearts out about everything that they were seeing. It definitely gets old, and it definitely gets distorted, but the context can still be found in the beginning.
ReplyDeleteI like the idea that Diego brought up of the media and campaigns as being on a two person bike, but I’m gonna have to say the media will be in the front making all of the turns and determining the speed.
Many fellow students have already mentioned how important of a role citizen journalists play in an increasingly connected world. To specifically answer the second question, I believe campaigns will have to make more effective use of citizen journalists. While traditional media is and will remain the key player in any media relations plan, the citizen journalist is becoming more prevalent in terms of importance.
ReplyDeleteI have noticed this trend in my studies of advertising and public relations; word of mouth has now become king in these industries, because it is what consumers trust most. As a result, bloggers are more often becoming a target market as their platform provides a great medium for word of mouth. Likewise, more consumers turn to reviews of products and service written by their fellow consumers.
This concept applies to politics. Political campaigns are advertising campaigns on steroids. Even in the last presidential campaign, the use of blogging by the candidates was widespread. While the content found on candidates' blogs is most likely very calculated and message oriented, the trend still stands. I believe that this is in response to the widespread use of blogs among voters and the sense of "approachability" a blog lends a candidate.
During the beginning of the broadcast media era, television and radio news stations were absolutely in control of campaigns because they covered the fast paced horse race that showed who was ahead and who was behind. Candidates were completely at the mercy of the news stations because they ultimately determined how they were portrayed to the public, and the news reports were the main source of citizen’s campaign knowledge and opinions. While broadcast media still has that feature of covering the fast paced ups and downs of the horse race, I believe that they do not control the campaigns and the candidate’s images with the same power as they used to. Interested citizens can now long onto a candidate’s social media site like Facebook or Twitter and get updates about their campaign that has not been distorted or interoperated by any news media outlet. Candidates also have their own websites where they can also post updates about their campaigns. Additionally, because these new media outlets allow for candidates to “go public” much more easily than before, it is easier for citizens to learn about them in ways other than the horse race reporting of the traditional news stations. It is obviously these new outlets of communicating with citizens and portraying messages to the public that won Obama’s election. His campaign focused on updating his social media websites and reaching out to voters through contemporary social media sites, which made him seem more accessible to and more in-touch with the average citizen. On the other hand, Romney did not utilize nearly as many contemporary online and social media outlets as Obama did, and that definitely contributed to his already prevalent “out-of-touch” image. There is no doubt that campaigns in the future will have more emphasis on social media and going public through new outlets, because it worked so unbelievably well for Obama in 2012. It will be interesting to see what new ways candidates will find to reach out to their voters, because as it was proven in the 2012 election, that is what matters most to the public.
ReplyDeleteThe most interesting part of the 2012 election cycle was trying to determine who was in charge of what messages. Between the countless advertisements from the candidates and the endless media coverage of candidates' gaffes, it became increasing difficult to decipher where the message was coming from. Romney's 47% comment is a perfect example. Everything I heard about the 47% comment sounded nothing like the tape that was released. The media seemed to get a hold of it and shortened it and rephrased it until it eventually became another meme on the Internet. That is a great example of the media taking over a campaign. However I also saw countless advertisements from both parties. Therefore regardless of where the message comes from, it's almost impossible to avoid.
ReplyDeleteI think that the effective use of media won Obama the election in 2012 without question. His head start on developing ads and media strategies over Romney also greatly affected his successful outcome. Looking at the differences between Obama’s and Romney’s pages it becomes clear they have to very different strategies. Obama’s pages are full of meme-like photos. Colorful writing and clear catch-phrase messaging which are easy to share on your Facebook wall for friends to say a short statement about your stance on issues. This is what young people react to a look for on social media. However, Romney has a different tactic. His wall is littered with pictures of himself interacting with family and communities much more than Obamas. This may be a further effort to make himself look relatable but it goes deeper than that. It touches on the traditional values his party favors over technological prowess. It targets his audience and potential voters as effectively as Obama’s word pictures target his own.
ReplyDeleteIn the future, we see more of this happening and both parties getting that much better at it.
I recently got an info graphic in an email from the Democratic party. It was was several image of a series showing shadows of Romney and Boehner talking about the minimum wage increase. Boehner was against it, while some republicans like Romney have said in statements perhaps it’s a good idea. It ended with a link to join Romney and the democratic party to support minimum wage increase through signing a petition. I think these easy quick links sent directly to voters are very effective. I would be able to add my name in less than a minute, effectively making me a participant where I otherwise might not have been. I think all campaigns will be using these tactics in the future more frequently. The campaigns in charge of ads like this are in absolute control of this aspect of media distribution and it is an important control to have. It leaves more power in the hands of candidates than the interpretation of news broadcasters and will likely be widely expanded in the future. Especially this one, which shows bipartisan support.
What were the most effective uses of media conducted by campaigns during the 2012 election?
ReplyDeleteWhat media strategies should be used by campaigns to help win in the future?
Who is in the driver's seat, the media or the campaigns?
twitter and facebook were the most effective uses of media for the candidates because it allowed them to send out snippets of their policies and social views in a quick and easily digestible form without the need to refute commentators comments or questions. It allows for the candidate to specifically respond to events in real time, showing the candidates are always on top of what is happening. The campaign ad's are merely accessories to the broader goal of a campaign these days.
More open communication should be used by candidates in the future, responding to questions via the internet, using social media as a platform for communication rather than dissemination.
The media is in the drivers seat for campaigns as they spin the story and frame the candidates in ways they see fit, and are more trusted by the general public than the candidates themselves. The media also has the added advantage of involving various outside sources for their coverage, whereas candidates are mostly individually getting their message out. Though they have various supporters and outspoken advocates, they are truly on their own when it comes to shaping their campaign.
I disagree that the most effective use of media involved Twitter and Facebook. They were the most well-known uses for their campaigns, however, in terms of how effective it ultimately was for Obama and Romney, users on all social media outlets and blogs generally were more consistently negative than positive toward their campaigning. The effectiveness in my opinion just sustains political engagement for the time being, but doesn't inversely instill political interest and activism over time.
ReplyDeleteVery convincingly, the media has the upper hand over campaigns, but to improve it's overall effectiveness and create more interest in politics, they should look at multiple ways of virtually getting citizen's feedback and just create more deliberation amongst themselves. No longer does politics have to be an echo chamber where people of like-mindedness listen to one another, but digital technology enriches political conversation and engagement. People are exposed to more views than in the past, so that allows to get the kind of information that helps them evaluate candidates and policy ideas.