“…Few of us actually hear the presidential candidates speak in person - we develop impressions of them through the images that they and their advisors, the media, and we ourselves create of them.” (Hollihan, 76) The media shapes how we see candidates in every aspect. They show us selective clips, different camera angles (for example, CNN may focus more on Obama when he was speaking and FOX would show more McCain clips during the 2008 Election), criticize certain things we as viewers may never notice or care about (such as McCain “strolling around” the Town Hall), and pick apart and/or enhance the image of specific candidates. During the campaign and also during his Presidency so far, Barrack Obama has been shown in the spotlight quite a bit. The way the media has shaped his image is extremely interesting to me. He has been recognized in the media for his racial heritage, his wife and their relationship, and him just being a normal guy. However, I feel that there was a lack of information, care and concern displayed in the media for his political policies in our society. So, what does this kind of information do for us as voters, and why are we so infatuated with this useless information about our candidates? People were more interested in Obama as a person and a “celebrity” rather than, for example, his proposal for healthcare reform. Although his healthcare reform has created nation wide controversy, Obama may not be in this position if the media had not shaped his image into appearing like a typical American instead of the mainstream President figure we are used to viewing. These media representations are confusing the voters and distorting the reality of politics.
Hollihan’s Chapter 4 of Uncivil Wars talked about how studies have proven that candidate’s images are important predictors in how people will vote during Presidential Campaigns (83). For instance, Obama’s image during the 2008 campaign had both negative and positive factors to it. Michelle Obama was talked about in the media in a positive light, for reasons of how well she dressed and her muscular arms. Barrack Obama’s image was talked about in both a positive and negative light about being of African American decent. His middle name was considered questionable, his connection to Kenya was debated, and the color of his skin was controversial. There was also speculation that he let his hair grow out to its natural grey color to look “more qualified” for Office. His age was viewed in both perspectives as well. Either he was too young, therefore, under qualified for the position or it was seen as a good thing because he was close to the younger generation of voters and could relate to them more. He had many different aspects delivered by the media that contributed to the shaping of his image in both damaging and constructive ways.
Hollihan also talked about homophily, “the natural tendency of people to bond with others like themselves (85),” and how it highly impacts the way voters choose the candidate of their personal liking. He even made the comment that we, the voters, choose candidates similarly to how we would choose our own friends. This brings me to the clip I found of Obama after his election into Presidency. On HuffingtonPost.com, I found an article and video of Obama during the NCAA tournament. Obama was filling out and discussing his tournament picks on ESPN, talking about his brother’s picks, who would be mad at him for specific picks and why he picked the teams he decided to pick. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/13/obama-bracket-2009-ncaa-m_n_174769.html. Presidents in the past have been big supporters of sports such as Gerald Ford who was an avid football fan. The amount of time that Obama has spent attending sporting events, appearing on ESPN, and playing basketball on television with athletes, has at times seemed to overwhelm the media outlets that people go to in order to get away from the politics. Therefore, he is using the media to portray an image to a group of people who normally might not necessarily relate to him. After speaking with many of my peers and family, many believe that no president has spent this much time being in the public eye not speaking about politics or political concerns with our country. We learned in class that Presidents have been on talk shows and late night television recently in order to be more comparable the public. They do this in order to create the impression that they have common interests with us and are also attempting to create a “fresh image” for them. In the article on Huffington Post, Katz said that,
“President Obama made his picks as a sports fan, not as a politician. He was knowledgeable about the teams and was even up to date on the latest injuries involving the contenders. He was confident with his picks and delivered an on-camera pep talk for the team he picked to win it all. It was clear that he enjoyed filling out his bracket like the rest of America."
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/13/obama-bracket-2009-ncaa-m_n_174769.html
Obama chose to be on television in attempt to relate to every type of person and influence them to like "him" as a person. I think that purpose is very clear in the quotation taken from the article by Katz, or at least a strategic political communication tactic. Obama makes appearances at a variety of events and shows to reach his goal of having something in common with the everyday American. I have seen him (on television) at many sporting events, NBA and NFL games, on countless 60 Minutes, on entertainment channels for things like choosing a dog because “every American has a dog” or announcing the swing set he bought for his children at the White House. My question is: Aren’t there other things we (our society’s media) could be covering in the news about Obama, such as what his conversations with other Country’s Presidents include?
Presidents in the past have worked extremely hard to get there policies adopted by the government because they believe that it will make the United States a better place and most likely to help their opportunity of getting reelected. The idea of being president, in my mind, is to make sure that our economy and everything grows and is healthy. I am not saying that Obama is not doing these things but how are we supposed to know? Our media has spent much of their effort on showing what he does to relate to the typical American and less on covering his policies. Obama has been seen in the media merely relating to people in order to show that someone who is "like" us will represent us. I agree that our President should have a relatable personal image for the public but when it is overshadowing the Presidential duties, it concerns me as a voter and as an American. Do not get me wrong, I think it is great that the typical uninterested/ nonpolitical American can have something to spark their interest, concern and liking for “politics” but I do not think that Obama getting on ESPN and displaying to the American public that he thinks “so and so” are going to win the first round and “so and so” the second round is doing anything for our country. What does that actually do in the end for the American public? Teach us that it is better to relate personally to a Presidential candidate in future campaigns rather than to focus on their political policies, responsibilities and capabilities?
Hollihan continues to mention in Chapter 4 that image-dominated campaigns are responsible for oversimplifying issues and confusing voters (79). In my opinion, this past election with McCain and Obama was an abundantly image-dominated campaign and I feel the media misrepresented the candidates. It should not matter nor be such a main focus in the campaign that Obama likes to play basketball and his wife has muscular arms. Or that Hilary Clinton is a woman and spent a lot of money on her outfit. Focus on the politics, media outlets! Voters are confused as if they should care what brand the candidate’s outfit is or if they should be concerned if they are Pro life or not. The media at times skims over, if talked about at all, the candidate’s politics and get to the things that we Americans are “interested” in. I believe that the media needs to help encourage people to be interested in things that are actually involved in the duties and responsibilities of being President of The United States.
I found it interesting that Nimmo and Combs (1990, p 58) were commented on page 79 for comparing the campaign to a beauty contest. I would agree that there are some behaviors that resemble a beauty contest. It is all strategic political communication, such as the strategic communication demonstrated in a beauty pageant. Especially for the younger generation voters where the 2008 Election was one of the first times they voted. The media changed the election into popular culture, disorienting the priorities of the candidate’s images and further confusing the young voter on what is important for the voting process. The candidates, their advisors, and the media intentionally show everything that is “performed” for the American society during the campaigns. We, a society, need to learn to recognize what is important in shaping the image of the politician and the fundamental politics behind the candidate alone.
WORKS CITED
Hollihan, Thomas A. Uncivil Wars: Political Campaigns in a Media Age, 2 edition. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2009.
Nimmo, D.D., & Combs, J.E. (1990) Mediated Political Realities (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.
Obama Bracket: 2009 NCAA March Madness Presidential Picks UPDATED. Huffington Post. 18 March 2009. 15 September 2009. www.Huffingtonpost.com
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/13/obama-bracket-2009-ncaa-m_n_174769.html>
