Palin For President

Although the 2008 presidential elections just took place a couple of weeks ago, there is already talk of the 2012 presidential candidates. After President Obama fulfills his four years in office, people wonder what will be in store for America. There is speculation that although we have yet to see the positives and negatives of Obama as president, that he hopes to take on another term. There is also speculation that Sara Palin will take the ticket for the Republicans nomination. After the Republicans “weak” choice of Senator John McCain as there nominee, one must question if choosing Palin would be beneficial for the party as a whole. Throughout this semester, our class has discussed the role of females in political communication. After seeing how negatively the press and eventually the people responded to her throughout the campaign I have doubts on whether or not it would be in the Republicans best interest to nominate her if they really want to see a GOP riding in Air Force One.

Palin took harsh abuse from the media throughout her vice-presidential campaign. The media ridiculed her, mocked her and practically terrorized her on how she dressed, acted, spoke, winked, and also on her knowledge of policies and politics. The discussion of her wardrobe was truly baffling. Claims that a large portion of the campaign’s budget was allotted for Palin’s clothing alone terrified many people. The media talked about that story for weeks and negatively promoted the image of Plain as a large spender and questioned her ability to relate to the “Joe Six Packs,” “Joe the Plumbers” and the “Michelle I’m finally proud to be an American’s.” If Palin were to dress a different way and not look as polished and wear pant suits as Hilary Clinton did, she would be critiqued for that. One must question what the appropriate in-between dress code for women in politics is.

Palin would also be critiqued if she didn’t appear to be feminine as Hilary Clinton (a female presidential candidate) was. When Clinton didn’t respond with a smirk or a laugh to an innocent joke the media and people viewed her as inhumane, yet when Sarah Palin embraces her bubbly, high spirited and enthusiastic personality, and winks during a debate the media mocks her. This raises the awareness that women truly do get the brunt of the media.

Overall, the media plays a large part in the presidential election. With the media having such a negative impact on the Republican’s campaign in this past election, one must question if they will really consider nominating Sarah Palin for president. It seems as though the media has more to critique on female candidates making it questionable if and when America will be ready for a woman in the White House.

Considering the Relationship: Politics and New Media

It has been argued that the internet has become a medium of the people. With you tube, bloggs, and infinite access to information it is hard to perceive the internet as another medium subject to favoritism and a concentration of power. In fact bloggers have entered the political landscape in full force bringing credibility and significance to civilian voices. But despite these advantages this seemingly democratic medium may infact be marginalizing voices. Are political bloggs diversifying the political landscape as a way or are they too guilty of marginalization? Is this a truly democratic medium or just a counter to other biased voices? Consider the following issues:

Who are we hearing and what is the quality of deliberation?
We discussed an article that articulated the idea of the internet as primarily a liberal medium. As a result we can make the assumption that much of the discussion and opinion put forth on blogs and uploaded on you tube reflect the liberal positions of their source. Additionally, the ease of access also brings issues of credibility and compromises the quality of deliberation. Anonymity breeds incivility further compromising quality debate.


Who has Access to Initiate Discussion?
As a liberal medium we have to consider that many voices are marginalized. It is not merely an issue of conservative and liberal though. Class and gender gaps contribute to homogenized participation. As a result issues pertinent to these groups are put on the backburner.

What will it mean for politics and specifically the conservative audience in the future?
Barack Obama is proof that whoever can harness this medium has a distinct advantage in political campaigns. Thus we will start to see a political landscape dominated by liberals and democrats? If the internet continues to function as a liberal medium and continues to be the determining medium we may very well see conservatives struggle to maintain a presence in politics.

The internet has by all means revolutionized society and especially politics as evidence of this past election. I think it is our duty to consider these questions and as communication scholars consider the impact of this medium in shaping political communication.

The Price of the Presidency

In the wake of the Presidential election, it’s natural that Obama should be elated and excited to begin his next step which he spent 2+ years pursuing. But as with every major life change, the Presidency of the United States comes with a cost: Obama will likely have to give up his Blackberry. Giving up email and cell phones is by no means an unusual practice for our modern Commanders in Chief. George W. Bush signed off before he took office in 2000 and again in 2004 with a brief message to friends. I remember reading an old interview (I think it was in People magazine) where Bush confessed that he is really looking forward to emailing his friends once again.

While it seems silly to put a communications cap on the president, it might actually be for the best. In addition to security concerns, every president faces the Presidential Records Act which makes all correspondence during his (or one day, her) time in office—personal and professional—public knowledge. After Sarah Palin’s email account was hacked, Americans learned that our politicians in the spotlight can never be too careful.

By all accounts, Obama is quite attached to his Blackberry; indeed, he’s literally joined at the hip to the device. During important campaign meetings he has been known to surrender it to the middle of the table, sneaking a furtive glance when he sees he’s gotten messages or reminders. Aides say his messages are always correctly spelled and free of internet jargon. Would you expect anything less from the President Elect?

Even without his Blackberry, Obama isn’t going to be thrown into the dark ages. He seems intent on being the first president to have a laptop computer in the Oval Office so he can receive read-only emails. He’s also taking a very unique step and has promised to create a YouTube video version of the traditional Presidential radio address. Obama is reaching out to America on new media and hosting a modern-day Fireside Chat.

Interestingly, these videos will not only feature Obama, but will also make political stars out of policy advisors and Cabinet members as Obama seeks to go around the mainstream media and bring politics back to the people. He has promised these YouTube videos since early in his campaign. This promise—and any resulting videos—will be a great example of the changing face of the politics-media relationship in the face of viral media. Obama’s YouTube chats will have the advantage of being interactive and convenient for the audience. Obama will be able to control the flow of information and answer questions he’s not posed by reporters from traditional media. Moreover, these videos are something as yet unseen and untried by the President; they’ll likely be exciting and entertaining for this reason alone.

Given that Obama’s use of the internet was highly influential in the success of his campaign, his move to bring YouTube to the White House is unsurprising. Between the money he raised on myBO and making his name known through YouTube videos, Obama is clearly a candidate comfortable with the technology of the youth of America (who voted overwhelmingly for him). While giving up his Blackberry might be difficult for Obama, he won’t be incommunicado—he’s putting himself at the fingertips of America through YouTube.

Perhaps he really is a candidate of change after all.

All Rise for the First Lady!

Since the first day of our Political Communication class, we have been discussing the popular topic of women in politics—especially those running for office. However, we did not talk much about the important role of The First Lady. Come January, Michelle Obama will become America’s next First Lady accompanying President-elect Barack Obama and their two daughters in the White House. Many have opinions on the certain credentials and requirements a First Lady should hold. The communication of the First Lady with the citizens is just as important as the communication with the President and the citizens. Michelle Obama, the first African American First Lady will put a fresh perspective on the expected.

“How the Obamas entertain, how they decorate, where their children will attend school -- ultimately all first family choices and activities add to an aggregate public impression. Historians now study first ladies as keenly as their husbands” (Merida). The First Lady should be familiar with current issues, how to handle the media, attend important political events, and have an active role in promoting their husband during the campaign. I admire Michelle’s intentions of balancing work and family, becoming a role-model for others, and volunteer when she can. The First Lady is not only the hostess of the White House, but they have a duty of involvement with the public.

Michelle is also not afraid to step up to thousands of people for spontaneous speeches. And even when Michelle is not speaking, she stands right behind Barack inches away from the podium to show her love and support. One can’t help marrying a timid wife, but I think having a first lady that is aggressive, confident, patriotic, and classy all at the same time is beneficial. Michelle is definitely outspoken and assertive, but many have criticized her for her lack of patriotism towards the United Sates of America. A few months ago, she made this comment:"For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country." She managed the negative press properly, but I think next time, she should really think before she talks.

People are always talking about the First Lady’s style and clothing. Not too long ago, Michelle Obama wore a simple and elegant dress on the popular talk show, The View. What really wowed the audience was that the dress came from a chic clothing store White House Black Market costing $148. Michelle showed that she is just like other American women: styling with a budget. After the whole Sarah Palin clothing out roar, this appearance on television made Michelle look good.

Michelle has big shoes to fill. As many view: Barbara Bush has been the typical and traditional First Lady living in the White House. Even though Michelle has been compared to Jacqueline Kennedy, she will bring “change” to the First Lady position by sticking to the traditional roles and become an active “do-it-all” First Lady all at the same time. “So yet another evolution awaits Michelle Obama: lawyer, wife, mother, politician -- and now, first decorator” (Merida). With her lawyer experiences, I wouldn’t want to argue with Michelle on what color goes and stays.

Does the internet effect voting?

The Internet had a huge effect when voters went to cast their vote in this year’s election. Whether the voter used the internet a lot or not at all, it still in some way had an effect. I tend to forget that thousands and thousands of people still do not have internet access. Just because we are fortunate enough to have it and even get frustrated when it is moving “slow,” not everyone in our country is that privileged. As I begin to think about this technological phenomenon, I realize that just as we are influenced by the words someone says on the television or radio, I believe we are even more influenced by the internet. There are millions of pages of information available for us to surf, and we can read or watch something time and time again, thus noticing something that we might not have paid much attention to had we been flipping through channels or browsing the newspaper.

With the speed of the web, it is very easy for someone to post something the second they have an opinion about an issue or something new in the election process has happened. You missed one of the debates? Well, just find it on the internet and watch it on your own time. Don’t know that much about a particular issue? You can search the candidate’s website or simply type in the name of your topic to google news and thousands of news-related articles will pop up. Someone without internet access is unfortunately cut off from many of these opportunities. As the days moving towards the election got closer and closer, those without internet access might not have caught all of the small occurrences they might have wanted to know about before making their final decision.

On the other hand, sometimes I think it might be more beneficial without the internet. I feel that without the internet, voters would have more of an opportunity to formulate their own opinions and not reword one that they read or heard online. Even though this is still possible to do from watching TV, reading the newspaper, or listening to the radio, the internet is the master medium because it gives its audience the ability to do all of these in one form of media, and the information is available at all times for as long as you want it or need it. In addition, people who typically do not use the internet will most likely not have to worry about their facts being inaccurate. Things they read about in the newspaper or hear on the television or radio are going to be accurate because they are coming from credible sources. When something is posted on the internet, yes, there are many credible sources such as The Washington Post or MSNBC.com, but there are also many other sites written by any common individual who wants to share their opinion, just as I am doing now, so one might often wonder where these “facts” are coming from if they can even be considered facts.

To sum it up, the internet has both advantages and disadvantages, and it can affect a voter in one of two ways. 1) Those with access have tons of information available at the tips of their fingertips 24 hours a day. 2) Those without the internet might not get caught up in the scrutinized information the media is critical about, and they will be able to formulate their own opinions without constantly being influenced by every page they surf on the web.

Feminist Take on Clinton and Palin's Impact

Here is an article assessing the impact of the 2008 candidacies of Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. Gloria Steinem makes an interesting point about the reaction of young women to the media coverage of the two candidates. She argues that media sexism directed at Clinton and Palin may have opened the eyes of twenty- and thirty-something women around the country, injecting feminism with new momentum. Do you agree? Feel free to comment.

A Closing (Rogerian) Argument

I'll be the first to admit throughout the campaign I did not turn to the internet to receive my political information. I find it difficult to deceifer truth from the fallacies, and know that it has become so easy for individuals to post untrue information about others onto the internet. Being a college student, I know others tend to look at college students as being easily impressionable individuals. I believe it takes true initiative to understand why we as college students choose to support our candidates and to actively campaign and continue to educate ourselves on the beliefs we feel will positively form the country. I commend and congratulate those of you who participated in your first (or second) election-- we made history either way you look at the outcome.


I first went to John McCain's website and was pleasantly surprised to see his thank you concession speech from Tuesday night's results because I felt it was so powerful. As an avid McCain supporter, his speech was bittersweet. After talking to both Obama and McCain supporters, many were touched by Senator McCain's concession speech. I felt McCain's speech can be looked as being a Rogerian Argument because of his strong empathy towards Barack Obama's historic victory. Senator McCain has a strong love for his country and the faith he has in our country gives me hope America is in a good place because we have people living here that appreciate what America is and the values it continues to stand for. He understands the many obstacles African Americans have had to overcome throughout the years. McCain knows Senator Barack Obama has inspired many individuals to become involved in American politics, especially younger voters.

McCain's empathy is shown through acknowledging his victories within the debates. The two have noticeable differences and McCain states Obama has won the victory of the presidency because he was able to prevail during the harder fights. Even though the two currently hold the same office in American government, they both have different political views for two different parties. He emphasizes common ground by stating the love of their country and they both ran for the office of presidency because of the love and respect they have for our nation. McCain states they both have come a long way in their candidacy and the country has changed by their improvements they have made and the time invested to the United States of America.

Rogerian Argument states the candidate discusses the mutual benefits of collaboration. For this particular speech, I feel McCain makes that statement to his supporters to acknowledge we all are Americans. Barack Obama is the President- Elect for not only the American citizens, but will act as the President for Senator John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin. He states we need to offer "our next president our good will and earnest effort to find ways to come together, to find the necessary compromises, to bridge our differences, and help restore our prosperity, defend our security in a dangerous world, and leave our children and grandchildren a stronger, better country than we inherited". Our country should not become divided when this election prided itself on uniting the country and voting for our rights as citizens.


Although I wish the outcome had turned out differently, I do have a strong faith in my country. I trust their judgment and knowledge they made the right choice to lead our country as the 44th President of the United States. Please support our future President by educating yourself on him and VP-elect Joe Biden by reading up on his website.

Is the "Fairness Doctrine" Really Fair?

As President elect, Barack Obama, prepares to take office in a few months he may find himself dealing with an issue he did not see coming. Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein of California and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi are pushing for a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, a doctrine that, in my opinion, goes against the very foundations for which this country was formed. Representative Mike Pence of Indiana is leading the Republican charge against such reinstatement.

So, what exactly is the Fairness Doctrine and how does it apply to this class? Here is a little background on the Fairness Doctrine: it was a policy established by the FCC under President Roosevelt that required licensed broadcasters to present both sides of an issue if that issue was of public importance. The Supreme Court sided with the FCC and this policy was upheld until the FCC decided to have it withdrawn. In 1987 both houses of Congress passed a law that would have legally enforced the Fairness Doctrine but it was quickly vetoed by then President Ronald Reagan. Reagan responded to the bill in this way, “This type of content-based regulation by the federal government is, in my judgment, antagonistic to the freedom of expression guaranteed by the Constitution.” Recently, some Democrats are seeking to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, not through the FCC, but through possible Congressional legislation, much like the bill vetoed by Reagan in ‘87. The Democrats catalyst for suggesting such action… talk radio.

As previously discussed in class, talk radio is a predominately conservative medium. In the document posted to the blog by Professor Kramer some reasons for this include: 1.) The American public is generally more Conservative, 2.) It developed as a result of the mainstream media which many Conservatives felt had a liberal bias, and 3.) The overwhelming segmentation of liberal audiences and relative homogeneousness of Conservative audiences. For these 3 reasons, liberal voices have been drowned out while Conservative voices like Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, and Sean Hannity have flourished on the airwaves.

A reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine would require FCC licensed broadcasters to provide programming that would balance out radio airwaves, making it mandatory for radio broadcasters to provide equal air time to every viewpoint. This means that Rush Limbaugh would have to be countered with a show expressing the liberal viewpoint.

I personally take issue with a possible reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. Liberal views are allowed to be heard on the radio just as much as Conservative views. Liberals have only themselves to blame for their lack of presence on the airwaves. Liberal talk radio shows have not experienced success because they can not generate a large enough audience. Rush Limbaugh himself would never promote stifling Liberal views on the radio. In fact, he would probably welcome the competition.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, a supporter of reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, said on Fox News that talk radio “tends to be dwelling in hyperbole, its explosive, it pushes people to, I think, extreme views without a lot of information.” Senator Feinstein is promoting the passage of a law that would severely restrict our First Amendment rights. Talk radio, specifically political talk radio, does not do damage or harm to anyone. What Feinstein is really saying, is that it does damage and harm to the Democratic political agenda. It is no coincidence that Democrats are trying to stifle talk radio. They see it as a powerful tool for advancing the Conservative agenda.

When considering the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine it is important to consider what the Founding Father’s intended when they formed our great nation. The First Amendment was established to allow for the free expression of views. The Fairness Doctrine would restrict this freedom of expression. Liberals are allowed to express their views on the radio as easily as Conservatives.

This debate will continue to rage and eventually our new President may be forced to make an important decision on the issue. This is another example of an important issue the American people should be more aware of, but are not.

I guess this answer to the title of this blog post is "NO!" The Fairness Doctrine is not fair, because it would put restrictions on free speech, something all Americans are guaranteed.

CNN's Election Night Holograms

As we are moving into more unconventional areas of political communication, I thought I would add links to the CNN holograms that I mentioned in class today. The first holographic interview, in which reporter Jessica Yellin was "beamed" into the CNN Election Center, is here. In class, I failed to mention that Anderson Cooper later interviewed a hologram of singer will.i.am. That interview is linked here. So, is this a one-night wonder or is "holographic journalism" here to stay?