The Media, Campaigns & Elections

Do Political Campaigns affect behavior?

Do Modern Campaigns turn people off politics?

What is a negative campaign?

Can the media influence electoral outcomes?

What are the problems/inconsistencies with the paid media?

According to Norris, “Political communication is an interactive process concerning the transmission of information among politicians, the news media, & the public”.

Clear to see that it is normally a downward process from macro to micro- from government institutions to the voting public.

Political campaigning is a hugely important enterprise in elections. In the US a vast majority of a candidates time and resources are spent appealing for the public to elect him/her.

Norris identifies 3 main stages in the Evolution of Campaign Communications: 1. Pre-Modern 2. Modern 3. Post-Modern (Americanization of campaigning)

NB: As we go through these three stages think its clear that the stages are not zero-sum, it is not one or the other but rather they supplement each other.

IMPORTANCE OF CAMPAIGNS

“It is generally taken for granted that political campaigns boost citizens' involvement- their interest in the election, awareness of and information about current issues, and sense that individual opinions matter.” (Ansolabehere et al. p.829)

“Voter turnout is thus considered to increase directly with “the level of political stimulation to which the electorate is subjected.” (Campbell et al. 1966, 42; Patterson and Caldeira 1983).

Key to remember- will be touched on- that campaigns can be either mobilizing or demobilizing events.

PRE-MODERN

Campaign Organization- with leader at apex- surrounded by few close political advisers

Heavy reliance on both Local volunteers and Partisan Press

Voters were largely stable therefore job of parties was to mobilize their traditional bases of electoral support

Direct forms of campaigning- door-to-door, handing out flyers.

MODERN

Move from dispersed state and local party organizations to a nationally co-ordianted strategic campaign; from party officials and volunteers to paid professional consultants.

Printing Press still important, but in many countries there are weakening press-party linkages- as CRUCIALLY newspapers have increasingly become politically independent. They have the funding to be independent- do not need blessing of gov.

Newspapers began to become supplemented by TV

TV in turn has led to a greater polarization and disparity in Politics

New professionals were “hired guns” external to the party.

POST-MODERN

New Opportunities/forms of voter-parties interaction- websites, Q&A's etc.

Post-Modernism; Greater cultural pluralism, social diversity and fragmentation of resources

Huge amount of Parties/candidates have their own websites

40% of all daily papers were online in mid 2000

The Internet is a hugely important campaign weapon. Raising funds, helping people find information about candidate/policy etc.

Modern Day Facts & Figures

It is clear that Norris's point on the paid consultants is clearly true in modern day campaigns:

Hilary Clinton has hired more than 350 full time paid employees according to Boston Globe this is more than 95% of American businesses In 1992 Bill Clinton spent hardly anything on consultants whereas his wife Hilary so far has spent $1.3 million on consultants and advisers

All 17 candidates between them have spent $16.2 million on consultants during the first six months of this year according to FEC's latest returns

IMPORTANCE OF MEDIA

It is clear that the media does have some impact- however lots of research has shown that the media can dictate the turnout rather than the overall turnout.

If the media predicts a foregone conclusion then people will be a lot less inclined to go out and vote. In 1996 turnout dropped 5% after the media had predicted a Clinton victory well in advance.

Whereas in both 2000 and 2004 Bush vs. Al Gore & Bush vs. Kerry, there was no sure winner and turnout rose on both occasions.

Candidates in the Post Modern era feel that media and advertising is the best way to get people to vote

BUT: (Green and Gerber 2004: 9.) Door-to-Door campaigning and canvassing by party workers is more likely to increase turnout, and parties should resort to this.

WHAT DO YOU THINK IS THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO MOBILIZE PEOPLE? A TV ADVERT, NEWSPAPER ARTICLE, PHONE CALL, LOCAL PARTY WORKER?

The Importance of Advertising for candidates

Whatever we feel is best way to mobilize the vote- it is clear that in elections in America the main way to campaign is through television advertising.

Direct way to appeal to voters

Psychological research shows that people will often subconsciously frame opinions on what they have watched.

FACTS & FIGURES:

According to TNS Media the amount spent on TV Advertising could reach $3 billion compared to $1.7 billion in 2004

Mitt Romney has aired his advertisements approx. 11,000 times at a cost of $8.6 million. He is in the red, and lagging in the polls. Does it work??

DECEMBER 10TH 2007 Presidential Campaigns spent $1 million dollars on TV advertising in a day

PROBLEMS WITH PAID MEDIA

Does it work to the extent that money is paid for it?

Unfair advantage to the more wealthy candidates.

In USA if no financial backing cannot hope to compete with the Clinton's and Guliani's

Whereas in other countries all parties with some minimum threshold are allocated some free air time

Is it a problem that the entire electoral process now rewards those whose skills are more rhetorical than substantive. The media builds up events such as debates as the be all and end all of campaigns- whereas surely a candidate should be judged on their policies and experience.

Today however according to Ansolabehere et al. What is important to success is that candidates “private lives and electoral viability, rather than party ties, policy positions, and governmental experience, can withstand media scrutiny.”

Today and following on from this issue is the the notion of 'negative' or 'dog-eat-dog' campaigning. The last election between Bush and Kerry was characterized by Negative campaigning from the Kerry side on Bush's involvement in the National Guard instead of being called up, and from the Bush side whether Kerry was indeed as good a fighter and as brave as he said.

This negative campaigning is often carried out by interest groups not necessarily by the parties- but eg. By criticizing Kerry this is in turn criticizes the democratic party. Are these interest groups free of influence??

This negative campaigning is, it has been argued has turned people off politics. Citizens would rather here about candidates stand on a policy/issue or what they feel strongly about. However today campaigns due to the need to get the most for money are taken up with slanging/criticizing their opponent. In Democratic campaign- already clear to see- although under same party slogan Clinton criticizes Obahama for being in experienced. -Concept of Obama's middle name Hussein

Ansolabehere, Iyengar, Simon and Valentino investigated the effects of campaigns on the electorate, to see whether campaigns mobilize the electorate.

Conclusions: “We assert that campaigns can be either mobilizing or demobilizing events, depending upon the nature of the messages they generate.”

Attach advertising extracts a toll on the electoral participation. Voting intention dropped by 5%. In 1992 senate race it dropped by 4%

Clear that it does turn voters off. Also clear that those who engage in such advertising can turn voters away from polls.

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER

Should there be a limit on spending on advertising?

Do you agree with the notion that the wealthiest candidates will do better regardless of skill? (Romney in Iowa only 2nd Place- Huckabee values/principles proved the winner)

If you were running a campaign what would be your main focus?

How important is the support of the media?

Do you agree that Negative advertising turns the electorate off politics? If so why do politicians continue to do so?