IMC Hawks Blog

Category: Political communication

  • White House Ballers

    With the re-election of President Barack Obama there is one sport that is overwhelmingly happy that he is staying another four years, and that sport is basketball. It is obvious to all that President Obama loves basketball and is more than happy to use his influence to help spread the game. It is well-known that he likes to fill out the NCAA March Madness brackets that everyone goes crazy for and is surprisingly good at it. Like most major sports, the NBA  championship team gets to visit the White House and meet the President for a photo-op. Obama,of course,  isn’t complaining since he is a huge NBA fan and has been to several games during his Presidency. Never before has a President been so involved with one sport that he can call upon the biggest name athletes in the NBA to come help him out at different charities and fundraiser events at any point in time and they will come running. For example, in this election year, Michael “Air” Jordan hosted a 3 million dollar fundraiser for President Obama in New York and had NBA players like Carmelo Anthony, Rajon Rondo, Kyrie Irving, Joe Johnson, and Paul Pierce in attendance to play some hoops. With so many NBA superstars on his side he gets a good amount of publicity and respect from basketball fans all over the country. Obama is so integrated into the basketball world that the video game “NBA 2k13” has him show up as a character in the game to greet you at the White House when you win the championship in the game.

    Obama in 2K

    This is great publicity for the Commander-in-Chief, as basketball fans everywhere will see the President’s face every time they win the championship.  He may be the first President with the ability to advertise in a video game just because he loves the game of basketball so much. On election day he even plays his now-traditional “Election Day” basketball game with several big name NBA stars and a variety of White House aides. We think it’s safe to say that many basketball fans and basketball console gamers will be seeing more of President Obama the next four years.

    Eugene Lee, Lauren Habig, Erin Kiffmeyer, Hannah Eure, Ally Walton

  • Four More Years… of Media Frenzy?

    All night long Americans were glued to their televisions or their computers anticipating the results of the 2012 Presidential Election. Around 11:20PM on Tuesday, November 6th America got their answer: four more years for President Barack Obama. Some celebrated and some cried. This election deepened the political divide between Americans unlike any other election. What made this election different from any other? The answer is the mainstream media bias.

    Even though Obama’s campaign team stood their ground in the battleground states, the real winner should be media outlets. Whether it was the presidential debates or the campaign trail, media coverage was everywhere. Does this increased access to information via the media mean we are better informed than we used to be? The mainstream media is our main source of information; we rely on them to know what is going on outside of our bubble.

    The question is… what happens when the media takes on a biased role? A major criticism of the media is that it isn’t just giving us information but also conditioning us about how to think about the issues. CNN and Fox News are criticized as two of the most biased sources in the market, and they are also two of the largest. This means the same story can be presented on both outlets but the facts included can persuade the reader to feel a certain way about the issue. This article from CNN states that Romney supporters were asking for Fox News instead of CNN when it became clear that Obama was taking the lead. This is good news in that it means people are aware of the biased, however, turning to a known biased source to get the story you want compromises the credibility of the information you receive.

    Media bias is everywhere. It is nearly impossible to get just the facts on the current issues. As informed consumers, this leads us to question how the bias impacts the general public. What happens when the public accepts the bias opinion as factual information? For one thing, the party divide deepens. A conservative tuning into Fox News sees his/her beliefs reaffirmed day after day, and the same happens when a liberal tunes into CNN. After a while, this can create a red and blue polarization. In some cases the divide has increased so much so that the two parties cannot begin to reason with the opposite side. Does this mean it is the media’s fault we have become so divided in our political views?

    Now that the election is over, it is time that we refocus our attention on the issues at hand in our country and work together for the greater good of America despite personal political affiliation. Is this still possible with such biased media? Regardless of who won, how do we now come together to do what is best for America? President Obama: the media will either provide a platform to cultivate support for your ideas, or tear every move you make to shreds. As citizens of this great nation, we are all rooting for you… the President of the United States of America.

    – Alexandra Huss, Caroline Merrill, Alyssa Morrello, Lauren Van Trigt, Dann Williams

  • The End is Near…

    That’s right folks… election day is just around the corner! After a long year of campaigns taking over commercials, social media, and highway grass, it is high time the winners are decided. The question is: do you know who you will be voting for? If you find yourself in need of some unbiased information on the election, check out this non-partisan voter resource created by UNCW’s Media and Politics class! UNCW Know Your Vote is intended to help voter’s like you get the facts without the spin. Information is available on both the presidential and North Carolina’s candidates for governor. Along with links to fact checkers, mainstream media sources, and political blogs! Be sure to check it out and let us know what you think!

    -Alexandra Huss

  • Just say anything to win.

    With the 2012 presidential election day right around the corner, the candidates have found themselves in a television battlefield. Each candidate hopes to take his opposition down by firing loaded words weekly. It seems that advertisements to vote for a candidate have instead evolved into advertisements to not vote for their competitor. Both the Obama and Romney campaigns have spent millions on these largely negative commercials that appear to be overflowing our televisions, especially in battleground states. As viewers being constantly bombarded by accusatory messages, are these presidential candidate advertisements doing more harm than good?

    Romney has recently received immense criticism for a misleading television advertisement that aired primarily in Ohio about Obama and the auto industry. The commercial states that Chrysler is moving Jeep production to China because of Obama’s failed policies, a claim that aimed to hit home with the thousands of Ohioans employed in the industry. Although Chrysler does intend on building Jeeps in China, it can be interpreted from the advertisement that Chrysler will stop making Jeeps in the United States and move all production to China. The Democrats’ response to Romney’s claim used blunt terms attacking Romney’s character. The claims were deemed as “outrageous assertions” and Biden even asked of their competitors at a rally in Youngstown, Ohio, “Have they no shame?”

    These responses may have successfully portrayed Romney as a “liar,” but Obama’s auto advertisement used some of the most biting rhetoric yet, according to The Detroit News. It emphasizes Romney’s “wrong-headedness on the auto bailout” (as cited from The Detroit News’ editorial page) but never mentioned the paper’s overall endorsement for Romney in the election.

    Every word in a speech by a presidential candidate is deliberately chosen. Each phrase in a campaign advertisement is carefully crafted. Nothing presidential candidates deliver is accidental, innocent, or meaningless. Politicians are most successful when their campaigning efforts communicate the precise message their audience wants to hear. But what happens when they will say just about anything to win?

    –Erin Kiffmeyer, Hannah Eure, Eugene Lee, Ally Walton, Lauren Habig

  • Remember When…We Didn’t Live in a Web 2.0 World?

    What do you think of when someone asks you “Remember When?” Among the historical disasters that have plagued our world, the media has always played a prominent role in the information that is released to the rest of the world. For example, in 1986 a huge explosion occurred at a nuclear power plant in Chernobyl, Ukraine. Even though nuclear power represented a large technological step forward for mankind, our technology in regard to media was still lacking. In fact, the Soviet Union tried its hardest to keep any information regarding the disaster out of media coverage. Not only did it take a long time for the rest of the world to find out about the disaster, but when they did, many of the facts were inaccurate and misleading. This is only one of the many examples in which getting authentic news coverage was halted by the government. Also, the mediums in which the information was made public were very minimal.  There are many other events that occurred during World War I, World War II, The Cold War, Vietnam, etc. that were not made public as well due to the lack of technology in that era.

    In more recent years, a new dawn of technology has signed the beginning of the Tech Age as well as the information Era. These new technological discoveries have further allowed us to transfer information liberally and have also given us the privilege of instant access to information that would otherwise have been difficult or tedious to find in the past. With improvements in technological development, such as the internet, we now have new global platforms that further enable and enhance the flow of information.

    We saw the amazing impact of the Web 2.0 technological age on the fateful day of September 11, 2001.  The new millennium called for the drastic cell phone advancement from bulky older versions to a new PDA form.  The advantages of this transformation really came to light when doomed passengers were able to make one more phone call home on their descent.  Also, real-time coverage about the day’s events was available instantaneously for the world to follow.  Unlike the decades prior, we did not have to wait for the evening news or rely on word of mouth information about the attack.  Americans could simply turn their television on, tune into their radio, call someone on their cell phone or access the internet from their PC or smart phone to keep up with ongoing news that day.  While this was beneficial to the average American that wanted to be informed, it proved especially pivotal for family members that had loved ones working in the buildings that were attacked.

    Every major advancement in society comes with its consequences.  While the technology era has birthed an easier way of living and communicating, the new wave of innovations came with a downside characterized by the improper usage of this knowledge via the media. Nowadays the media is manipulated all the time; these negative effects often come from lobbies that push political agendas or use inaccurate sources.  It is hard to determine what is credible on the web today due to the fact that almost anyone can access it.  Even with the disadvantages that come along with the new technology enhanced media, events such as September 11th prove the importance of getting accurate information in a timely manner.

    – Sasha De Vecchi, Lindsay Gallagher, Jay Reilly, Cary Welborn

  • #Eastwooding

    Clint Eastwood is a man of many roles: he’s a movie star, American badass, producer, director, and even politician.  Most recently, he can also add empty chair talker to the list.  Eastwood attended the Republican National Convention this past Thursday, August 30th. He was attending the convention to give an endorsement speech prior to Republican candidate Mitt Romney taking the microphone, and things got a little wacky.  Eastwood began talking and asking rhetorical questions directed towards Barack Obama to an empty chair on stage.   Almost immediately after the speech aired on television, Clint’s stint at the convention became a huge buzz on social media networks, such as Twitter, where #invisibleobama was trending.  Not only were people talking about Eastwood’s strange chair conversation, but people also began posting pictures of themselves reprimanding empty seats as well, giving rise to the internet’s newest sensation, #Eastwooding.

    Romney may not have known what the outcome of bringing Eastwood to the convention would be, but it was certainly a strategic move on his part. It is safe to say that even if no one was expecting such a social media buzz about the speech, Romney was definitely looking to add star power to his campaign. Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, have become celebrities in their own right over the last four years. Obama has even taken to trying to downplay his celebrity in this election. This article from the Washington Times discusses Obama’s relationship with George Clooney. Obama is quoted as saying, “Clooney keeps his distance so that [the President] won’t be criticized for hanging out with Hollywood celebrities.” So it makes sense for Romney to try to bring in some celebrity credit, since after all, he is competing with the President who hangs out with George Clooney and was nominated by Oprah Winfrey. Who could be better to compete with those two celebrities than Clint Eastwood? Both candidates are trying to walk the fine line of celebrity endorsement. Obama has a little too much, and Romney has a bit too little. Why does celebrity endorsement even matter though? Celebrities are able to make campaign’s multidimensional and bring in more funds.

    Mitt Romney knew what he was doing when he brought in Clint Eastwood. He knew that Eastwood is a celebrated and respected actor that everyone can easily recognize. What the Romney campaign did not realize was the unintentional social media phenomenon that #Eastwooding would become. This trending topic got people from all over the country posting pictures of themselves speaking to empty chairs. Not only did it spark a riot via social media outlets, it also turned a national holiday, Labor Day, into National Empty Chair Day where people were encouraged to continue to post more pictures of empty chairs. Coincidence? We will let you decide that one. As for the Republican Party, their intentions of bringing in Mr. ‘Dirty Harry’ himself were well thought out and calculated in hopes that he would be able to rally the voters who are currently undecided to choose their candidate. Instead, the Republican National Convention of 2012 will forever be known for Clint Eastwood yelling at an empty chair as opposed to what issues the party stands for in this election. These unintentional acts can make or break a campaign. Will #Eastwooding have a lasting impact on the campaign? Will the President soon become #invisibleobama? Only time will tell.

    –Alexandra Huss, Caroline Merrill, Alyssa Morrello, Lauren Van Trigt, Daniel Williams

  • Political Bias in the Media

    Campaigning for the 2012 presidential election has begun.  Republican hopefuls are working to convince voters that they are the right choice to defeat President Obama, while the president is trying to convince everyone that he should remain in office.  In 2008, the Democratic and Republican parties shared some of the same beliefs on certain issues, but had opposing viewpoint on others.  Democrats were in favor of requirements to hire more women and minorities, repealing tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, and removing troops from Iraq.  Republicans were in favor of three strikes sentencing laws, taking steps to strengthen the economy and more anti-drug initiatives.  Both parties were in favor of limits on political campaign funds, and a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.  The sentences above about the different parties were straightforward and un-biased, but it is difficult to find such information from one source.  You must be very careful in 2012 while selecting the information you are going to consider, regarding the candidates.  Beware of the agenda setters!

    Certain types of media will tell you that the Republicans are money hungry classists who are only in favor of appeasing the rich, with the intent to modify tax laws in order to behoove large corporations.  Then, that same media outlet will likely show a documentary on the sub-prime mortgage crisis, featuring interviews with families in middle America who lost everything.  There will be a lot of content promoting public programs for the under-served, and illustrating the Democrats as the humanitarian party.  That media outlet selectively left out good points about the Republican party on purpose.  It is called agenda setting, and it is when the media controls the amount of exposure certain news gets.  The more exposure people get to certain types of news, the more important it becomes.  If messages about middle Americans losing everything reach you every day, it will become important to you because it will inadvertently be on your mind.  There could be a more pressing issue out there, but if it is not prominent in the media, how will you know?

    You may be fooled into thinking that all Republicans are overly conservative and old-fashioned, and that Democrats are big spending and incautious if you don’t investigate for yourself. With regards to IMC, each party tends to portray the opposing side negatively. This poor image can potentially end a candidate’s campaign. With this in mind, it is up to the people to figure out which issues are important and research them from both angles. Ultimately,  politics can be quite biased, filled with false information and one-sided opinions. When you vote in this upcoming election remember: you cannot believe everything you hear or see.

    -Stephanie Bakolia, Claire Outlaw, David Glaubach