POLITICAL COMMUNICATIO

NCOM 380

Ron Bishop

THE THREE TENSIONS…

Between diversity and commonality. Between free information choice and

what we need to know. Between treating people as consumers

and audiences or as citizens and publics.

THE THREE TENSIONS…

Nothing so prized as our lack of memory.

Public sphere isn’t closing, it’s just littered with nonsense.

We’re “dispersed and disappearing,” said James Carey.

Reality has become a scarce resource. Will we retreat further into private life?

THE THREE TENSIONS… Like being in a constant state of war,

where peace seems like an alien concept.

It’s a game for insiders – this keeps us thinking we can’t play, much less have impact.

SO WHAT’S A TREE HUGGER TO DO?

TEAM OF RIVALS - REALLY? Not enough to say you belong to a party. It’s not us, it’s the system. Defeat those that don’t show allegiance! Who’s to blame?

TEAM OF RIVALS A growing gap between who we are and

who we elect. Loyalty is rewarded, not independent

thinking. We’re kind of becoming parliament. Party leaders aren’t strong, but party

activists sure as hell are.

HOW IT’S SUPPOSED TO GO All factions have a voice. All views are weighed, considered. Compromise can actually happen.

MADISON BELIEVED… The U.S. Constitution is our protection

against “a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, of interest…”

- Federalist Paper # 10

DEMOCRACY IS MESSY It’s supposed to be difficult. Factions shouldn’t be permitted to

accumulate power. This isn’t supposed to be a spectator

sport. The partisanship is pissing us off. But: we’re now used to seeing party line

votes on everything.

THE PROGRESSIVES’ FAULT? 1800s: We got tired of insiders calling

the political shots. Early 1900s: Progressives advocate

creation of political primaries. “This country belongs to those who

inhabit it,” they claim. But from the “best laid plans” division, it

hasn’t gone quite that way…

THE PROGRESSIVES’ FAULT? Turns out that only the most committed,

zealous voters vote in the primaries. Most of us don’t vote in primaries at all. We’re clearly divided into rival camps. Compromise is seen as selling out. Like

being a recording artist. Always campaigning; always playing to

your base. But why do we see politics like the Jets

and the Sharks in West Side Story?

BACK TO LIFE, BACK TO REALITY What’s the proper relationship between

citizens and the government? What’s the purpose of government in

the first place? What’s the proper size and scope of

government? Where is the balance between our

personal freedom and our responsibility to one another?

DEMOCRACY CAN GO AWAY… We’re the first nation where people were

allowed to vote on how they were to be governed.

It would really suck if this club were allowed to blackball us.

MADISON KNEW, RADAR… “The public good is disregarded in the

conflicts of rival parties…measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.”Federalist Paper No. 10

FACTIONALISM IS LIKE CATNIP The media, in their current form, eat this

up. Factionalism works. Policy is boring. Heated discussions are great, but not

when they’re staged. Bookers look for hotheads – which

explains James Carville.

DON’T STOP BELIEVIN’ National unity is “the main pillar in the

edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty, which you so highly prize.”George Washington, in his farewell address.

HABERMAS Reasoned discussion and open

exchange. Where it happens: the public sphere. Myriad pressures Conflict or consensus? The public isn’t just a mass. It’s not just the marketplace of ideas. Public sphere is inclusive, not exclusive. Build debate on arguments, not

packaging As David Bowie once asked: can it be?

LIPPMANN Doesn’t buy the “informed citizen” bit. We’re too damned busy; life is too

complicated as it is. We don’t do serious discussion. Hazy impressions and stereotypes work

just fine, thank you very much. Press was supposed to help, but news

isn’t truth. The “public” is a delusion. Public opinion is an irrational force.

AND FINALLY, DEWEY Democracy just needs a few tweaks. We all have something to contribute. We’re capable of making our own decisions. Have faith in our ability to learn, to grow. We lead private lives, but we don’t/can’t live

separate lives. Public opinion emerges as we discuss, inquire. We’ll be just fine if politicians, schools,

communities do their jobs. Information AND art. Experts are substitute for our best judgment.

IN REALITY, WHAT HAPPENS? The “dispassionate vision” we have of

the mind is not a factor in political decisions.

We are vulnerable to emotional appeals. It’s allegiance to party that wins out! But we don’t give up – we want you to

read more, know more. What are your “primordial sentiments”? Always out to maximize our “expected

utility.” Prone to the “availability bias.”

IN REALITY, WHAT HAPPENS? You have to show you know what folks

are feeling. Recognize that we use cognitive

shortcuts. Have to value their experience (in

politics as in life). Not talking about appeals to fears,

prejudices. Talking about appeals to hopes, dreams;

highlight shared fate or purpose. Show that you care.

THE “EMOTIONAL BRAIN” Emotional reactions “work” for us. A compass for guiding behavior. Not infallible. It’s all about the amygdala – and the

dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Reason and emotion are not opposing

forces. It’s all about the creating the right

associations for voters.

IT’S ALL ABOUT THE NETWORKS Darwin: Emotions serve an adaptive

function. There’s a mission to our reciprocal

altruism. Wait – B.F. Skinner actually fits here? Must build positive associations to

yourself; negative associations to your opponent.

Freud: What drives us are survival and sex.

Much of what we do/how we act reflects activation of emotion-laden networks of association.

AGENDA-SETTING, EXPLAINED Affect hypothesis Credibility hypothesis Counter-arguing hypothesis Bottom line? It’s not that media tell us

what to think; they tell us what to think about.

ON TO PRIMING… Priming: the media make some issues

more salient than others, which influences how we judge our leaders.

Key: accessibility What’s front of mind? How long does it

take to call up info from memory? Do the items on your agenda suffer from

“low associational strength?”

AND ON TO FRAMING…

AND ON TO FRAMING… Framing: select a few thematically

connected attributes when discussing something.

We infer causes based on the info we have on hand, or on brain.

An act of classification, of interpretation. We need these tools, these schemes.

They enable us to describe an event, an issue.

Natural vs. social frames We elevate, downplay, and avoid

elements.

AND ON TO FRAMING… Journalists frame, too. It’s a central story line that gives

meaning to events, helps us understand them.

Episodic vs. thematic frames – mostly episodic.

Ask us to pay attention to some elements of a story.

End up with a limited reading – a preferred reading.

Convenient packaging tool for reporters.

I’LL ALERT THE MEDIA It’s supposed to go:

agenda building - agenda setting – priming The Langs’ “four steps” Does our concern drive coverage? Are we talking causality here? Does salience influence how we view

leaders? And what influences how journalists

frame?

I’LL ALERT THE MEDIA A time of “overwhelmingly brazen

deception,” says Rick Perlstein. Why do lies stick around? How is life here in the “reality-based

environment?” Return with me now to those thrilling

days of yesteryear…

THE 1970S

I’LL ALERT THE MEDIA Truth-telling was patriotic! Whistleblowers were heroes! The truth hurt, but we dealt with the

pain.

THE 1980S

I’LL ALERT THE MEDIA Persuaded us that the folks exposing the

deceit were the villains. Part of our defense – or their defense –

of civilization against barbarism (meaning Big Bird).

If the cause was legit, lie away!

THE 1990S AND BEYOND Morality is redefined. Calling out a lie is made to seem

uncivilized. Looking for a turning point? Let’s go

back to Spiro Agnew… The birth, perhaps, of the “liberal bias”

myth. A new definition of civility, too. Do we live in a “mendocracy?”

AND THE MEDIA DO NOTHING…

LET’S BE HONEST… Do we actually believe lying is wrong? Lies sound better. Main criterion: is it a good story? We are a post-truth society – it’s the one

“post” I may actually believe in. Do we think safeguarding “social

harmony” is more important than truth?

MAKES A GOOD STORY

LET’S BE HONEST If we fail to see how lies change how we

live, we eventually come to underestimate their influence.

So let’s cop to our own “path dependency.”

Can reach the point that leaders believe their own lies – “blowback,” as it’s called.

LET’S BE HONEST Do we discuss lies in such a way that

the discussion becomes a type of dishonesty?

Is the fact we now do so much publicly that we used to keep private a factor?

THE RECIPE… Create your own reality. Demonize truth-seeking journalists. Whatever you do, don’t let the public

see the caskets! Just smile and wave boys, smile and

wave! Recognize/honor the screw-ups. Hold few press conferences. Pounce on every minor news media

reporting error. Launch your own fake news factory.

WHO’S THIS GUY?

CHANGES IN THE MEDIA Smaller budgets, smaller staffs. Demise of “the wall.” More demand for news; more news outlets. To paraphrase the great Don Henley,

there’s just not enough news in the world. Journalists at times desperate for cheap,

prepackaged stuff. Ratio of PR folks to reporters is 3:1. A handful of major corporations run our

media universe. Rise of the “outrage industry.”

A ROLE FOR GOVERNMENT? Political ads can’t be regulated, unlike ads

for commercial products. Ad subjects often irrelevant. Most political ads wouldn’t make it on to TV

if held to usual standards. Direct disparagement – not in commercial

ads. Negativity demoralizes us. We tune out. We always seem to surprised at the

bombardment. Ads are an EXTREMELY significant revenue

stream for stations, cable systems.

THE MOTARAN NEBULA Equal time rule still exists. Fairness doctrine is gone, but its spirit

kind of lives on. Commercial speech – is it or should it be

protected by the First Amendment? Are we shocked that broadcasters balk

at the idea of public financing of campaigns?

THE EQUAL TIME RULE Section 315 of the Communications Act of

1934. Requires radio and television stations and

cable systems which originate their own programming to treat legally qualified political candidates equally when it comes to selling or giving away air time.

If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any political office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station.

THE EQUAL TIME RULE "Legally qualified" means, in part, that a

person be a declared candidate. Timing of the announcement that

someone is running for office is important because it triggers the equal time rule.

1959: Congress creates four exemptions: regularly scheduled newscasts news interviews shows documentaries (unless the documentary is

about a candidate) on-the-spot news events

THE EQUAL TIME RULE Stations, cable systems can’t censor

ads. Not required to give free time unless it

has done so to another candidate. Have to make a “reasonable” amount of

time available to all federal candidates. Have to offer those ads a rate given to

“most favored” advertiser. If you offer a discount to Dorney Park, you have to give candidate the same deal.

THE FIRST AMENDMENT Do you buy the “slippery slope”

argument? Can the public tell the difference

between regulation and censorship? What do the 1st Amendment absolutists

have to say? You have to figure out what “speech” is

first.

A ROLE FOR GOVERNMENT? Boils down to this question:

Does the exercise by politicians of their 1st Amendment rights give them a disproportionate amount of power and undermine our ability to exercise the same rights?

WHAT WOULD MEIKLEJOHN DO?

BACK TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT Even Meiklejohn argued that

commercial speech should not be protected.

Not sure what he would have made of political ads.

Valentine v. Christensen (1942): Supreme Court rejects 1st Amendment protection for commercial speech.

We weren’t having a profound debate about freedom or democracy.

Courts were worried about commercialization of, well, everything.

BACK TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT So what happens when commercialism

penetrates every nook and cranny (brought to you by Thomas’ English Muffins) of our lives?

The media, advertisers, corporate lobbyists get it together and urge government to deregulate – and then hide behind 1A.

Conservatives wanted government off our backs; the media believe this is a good idea.

Amazing Maddow is on the air at all.

BACK TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT The media reach more of us than ever

before BUT are controlled by fewer entities than ever before.

Political leaders curry their favor. And thus came into being the

Telecommunications Act of 1996. Consolidation on a scale that shocked

even many in the industry.

HOW BAD IS IT? You can now own 8 radio stations in a

market. In about half of the top 50 markets, three

companies control 80% of ad revenues. You can own as many stations as you want,

so long as your reach doesn’t surpass 35% of US households.

You can own 2 or more TV stations in a market.

Licensing period goes from 3 to 8 years. A rubber stamp most of the time.

Cross-ownership ban is gone as of 2007.

BACK TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT So: Does the First Amendment authorize

corporate control of the media? Forces other views of 1A to the margins. Should 1A essentially be a mechanism

for protecting class privilege?

A QUICK REVIEW OF FIRST AMENDMENT APPROACHES… Absolutist Ad Hoc Balancing Preferred Position Balancing Meiklejohnian Access

BACK TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT Do we really care when it’s not election

season? It’s a pattern: scandal, then reform. Long long ago, we had the Tillman Act of

1907. It’s a grudge match pitting the “good

government types” vs. the conservatives and libertarians.

And let’s not forget Rufus Pickham… 14th Amendment transformed into mechanism

to advance interests of business owners.

BACK TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT Backlash in the form of the Progressive

movement. Teddy Roosevelt turns on the business

owners who helped him get elected. TR tells Congress in 1905 that corporate

contributions for any political purpose should be banned.

Tillman Act is great, but it’s a modest first step.

Way down the road, we get the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.

FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN ACT Limits amount an individual or group

($1,000)could give to a campaign; political committees could give up to $5,000.

Required reporting of contributions above $10.

Limited how much personal money a candidate could spend to get elected. Limited campaign expenditures overall.

Quarterly reports had to be filed with FEC detailing sources of contributions, purposes of expenditures of $100 or more.

BUCKLEY V. VALEO (1976) “Concept that government may restrict

the speech of some elements in our society to enhance the voices of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment…”

Individuals could spend as much of their own money as they wanted on their own campaigns.

FECA applied only to “communications that in express terms advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate for federal office,” Court said.

BUCKLEY V. VALEO (1976) Corporations, through Political Action

Committees (PACs) could donate directly to candidates…

…and in unlimited fashion through “soft money” contributions to the parties.

You could also avoid regs by publishing “voter guides” that highlighted contrasts between candidates in partisan ways.

Court bases ruling on distinction between expenditures (could not be restricted) and contributions (which could).

BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 2002 (MCCAIN-FEINGOLD) No funding of ads (“electioneering

communications”) that mention a candidate by corporations, unions, or non-profits…

In the 30 days before a primary or caucus.

Or in the 60 days before the general election.

If it mentions a name, it’s a criminal act!

MCCONNELL V. FEC (2003) With the ink barely dry on the law, NRA

files suit. McConnell “bogarts” it. Called M-F “the most threatening frontal

assault on core First Amendment values in a generation.”

McCain said law designed to eliminate the “widespread belief” of “an appearance of corruption,” but never provides evidence.

And anyway, can you restrict speech based on “appearance?”

MCCONNELL V. FEC (2003) District court rules soft money ban, 30-

and 60-day bans on issue ads were constitutional.

Government had a legitimate interest in preventing not only actual corruption, but also the “appearance of corruption.”

Called M-F a “modest” effort at reform. Decision was really the high water mark

in campaign finance reform. Then Justice Alito replaces Justice

O’Connor on the Court…

FEC V. WISCONSIN RIGHT TO LIFE (2007) Group wants to run ads criticizing

Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold and colleagues for using filibuster to stall judicial nominees.

Critical of Feingold, but didn’t tell you not to vote for him – but still an “issue” ad that couldn’t run right before the election.

Group challenged only that part of M-F, claiming it violated their 1A rights.

FEC V. WISCONSIN RIGHT TO LIFE (2007) Breyer in oral arguments: why should we

overturn McConnell so soon? Why not get rid of Tillman Act altogether, he asks (actually taunts).

We should have the opportunity to engage in grassroots lobbying, says WRTL attorney.

5-4 ruling; First Amendment “requires us to err on the side of protecting political speech rather than suppressing it,” writes the Chief Justice.

Headed toward getting rid of M-F: “We have no occasion to revisit that determination (McConnell) today.”

Souter dissents: M-F “effectively, and unjustifiably, overruled today.”

CITIZENS UNITED V. FEC (2010) Limits on outside political spending by

corporations and unions violate the First Amendment.

Paved way for creation of SuperPACs and their “dark money.”

“If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech,” wrote Justice Kennedy.

CITIZENS UNITED V. FEC (2010)

CITIZENS UNITED V. FEC (2010) If the government tries to “command

where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought,” Kennedy wrote.

“The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves,” he said.

The ban on direct contributions by corporations to candidates is intact, and they still must disclose spending and run disclaimers with their ads.

Why oral arguments matter…

CITIZENS UNITED V. FEC (2010) 1A protection for corporations has been

recognized since Santa Clara decision, Kennedy says.

“The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach,” he wrote.

In essence, we were being deprived of vital information.

CITIZENS UNITED V. FEC (2010) Expenditures the same as contributions,

says Justice Stevens. Kennedy disagreed, saying expenditures aren’t coordinated with candidates. Corporations could “speak” through their PACs and until the deadlines, Stevens said.

News reports, commentaries, and editorials were exempt from the rule, Stevens said.

Kennedy trots out the “slippery slope” chestnut, saying that Stevens’ theory would allow Congress to suppress speech in books, TV news programs, books, blogs…

ADVENTURES IN CREDIBILITY We’ve become credibility hounds,

always worried about image. Comes at expense of real ideas. We research, focus group, test drive

everything. Always a gap between real and

perceived credibility.

ADVENTURES IN CREDIBILITY “The interaction between source-related

attributes and the perceived attributes of a source held by the receiver.”

Or try this…“The degree to which the receiver regards a

source as trustworthy and a message as truthful.”

Or this…“A perceived characteristic of a source

based on a combination of beliefs about the source’s competence, trustworthiness, extroversion, composure, and sociability.”

ADVENTURES IN CREDIBILITY Competence Trustworthiness Extroversion Composure Sociability

LAZARSFELD AND MERTON Confidence is shared and tied to social

processes. Status conferral: boosting the standing

of ideas, institutions, and people that we see in media content.

Before we became so media-saturated, we looked to wealth, education, legacy, occupation to gain confidence in someone.

Being recognized is enough today, some say.

Visibility = Status?

LAZARSFELD AND MERTON The media giveth confidence, and the

media taketh away confidence. The “taketh away” happens through

status degradation – public shaming or marginalization of a person.

But is that just the media blowing their own horn – or horns?

CAMPBELL DISAGREES We’ve been raised on the “almighty

media” model. Media power is actually pretty modest. We fill in that blank! We confuse visibility with power. A good chunk of us seek no news at all.

SOURCES OF THIS MYTH? Tendency to weave a few facts into a

familiar shape. Sloppy, vacuous reporting. Timing, as we know, is everything. Movies help. When politicians lash out, the media

reports the lashing! Talk endlessly about the “media circus.” Helps if there’s a “timeless lesson”

about journalism, too.