Strategically Communicating

Emma’s well-stated question was thrumming through my mind as I read “The Lie Factory,” as well. A certain moment towards the end jumped out at me, when Carey McWilliams wrote a story about Baxter and Whitaker for The Nation in a way that shocked both strategic pioneers: he was fair. As Lepore writes:

“He hadn’t been simple. He hadn’t attacked them. He had taken time to explain. He hadn’t invented an enemy. He hadn’t taken remarks out of context. He hadn’t made anything up. He hadn’t lied.”

Even more shocking? McWilliams’ article actually had an impact. It inspired many doctors to resign from the A.M.A., and the A.M.A. later fired Whitaker and Baxter in an effort not to “compromise its nonpartisan status.” This flicker of hope in a generally spirit-dampening story makes one wonder if, in the end, the old adage is true: cheaters never prosper. Campaign, Inc., set a precedent for outright war among candidates, highlighting the ugly human hunger for victory and obscuring the fact that elected leaders exist to represent and protect their constituency. One wonders if America can ever bounce back from how deeply it’s been steeped in a game of political tug-o-war.

Can we conjure up real-life examples of “nice guy” politics, similar to those imagined by Leibovich in “Feel the Loathing”? What, if anything, can candidates and political parties do to reverse the cycle established by Campaign, Inc.?

The old saying, “no news is good news” refers to the idea that some people believe if they have not heard about a situation, then nothing bad has happened.  In reality, news keeps us informed as citizens, no matter if it’s good or bad.  

The Pew Research Center released a ten-year study in late September that pointed to specific transformations in news consumption.  Alarmingly, Pew reported that a sizeable minority of young people less than 25 years old said they got no news at all yesterday! Despite the variety of news sources available, whether traditional news sources or digital news platforms, a full 29% are newsless, said Pew. That’s right, almost a third of those less than 25 may not know what is happening in the world around them. Further, those younger than 30 that did get news yesterday, most spent considerably less time (an average of 45 minutes) consuming it than older age groups, said Pew. 

Based on these and other findings, the conclusion may be  “no news is bad news” if you consider that the public derives the majority of their knowledge of politics and current events from print, television, radio or digital news sources and a growing number are not getting any news at all.

Why do you think there is a growing number of young people who do not get the news? Should our education system require  classes to dissect and analyse current events? What is the value of news to you?

“…A recurring theme that emerges from talking to those involved in these [crowdsourced journalism] projects is that the crowd contributes because it has sufficient passion or interest in an issue, or perhaps, adequate stake in it. ‘They have an interest to do it because they are passionate. These folks take great pride in volunteering and lending their very specific expertise,’ Wells says of…Team Watchdog.” Reading this passage in Muthukumaraswamy’s article “When the media meet crowds of wisdom” reminded me of my favorite automotive blog/news site Jalopnik.com, part of the Gawker network.

Jalopnik is a car enthusiast site “obsessed with the cult of cars” that covers car culture, motorsport and the automobile industry. Staff writers on the site are former car magazines writers, car company employees and bloggers with great enthusiasm for everything automotive. However, much of the content on Jalopnik originates from reader tips and comments. The crowd that contributes to Jalopnik is passionate with very specific expertise – car knowledge, in this case. One example of how readers share their expertise is a regular feature on the site, called “Question of the Day”, that asks a car-related question. The following day, “Answers of the Day” features the ten best reader submitted responses. The site is so popular among car enthusiasts that automotive manufacturers beg Jalopnik to review their cars, which the writers often do. Unlike most car magazines, Jalopnik is not supported by advertising revenue and will unceremoniously pan a new car if it’s warranted.

How are crowdsourced journalism and online discussion platforms like the Gawker network joining forces to alter the ways we create and consume news?

According to Muthukumaraswamy’s When the Media Meet Crowds of Wisdom, a disadvantage of crowdsourcing “is the unreliability of the news obtained…However, such projects are transparent in what they deliver because the audience is aware of what it is getting.” (p. 51)

This assertion comes in stark contrast to the premise of Whitaker and Baxter’s winning formula in Lepore’s The Lie Factory, where “Never explain anything” is key to swaying public opinion.

Lepore quotes Nixon adviser William Gavin to say “Voters are basically lazy…uninterested in making an effort to understand…Reason pushes the viewer back…impression can envelop him…without making an intellectual demand.”

With this in mind,  I think Muthukumaraswamy is overly optimistic in assuming that the average viewer has the energy (or training) to filter its information (Note the May survey that found that viewers who consume ZERO news are better informed than those who watch FOX).   Likewise, I think Muthukumaraswamy is being naive when she worries solely that amateur reporters “are not sufficiently trained in rules that govern traditional media.” (p.59)  Not only are they not “trained,” but in today’s climate they also have nothing to lose (and are, to the contrary, commonly rewarded) by spouting nonsense.

How, in this age, do we normalize a source that the average viewer can trust to be reliably neutral?  And if people are as stupid as campaigns rely on them to be, why in the world do we want them “reporting” anything (except maybe gas prices (when the tank is on “E”)) to us?

Whitaker and Baxter in founding Campaigns, Inc. in the ’30s may have been the first people to make “politics a business” (The New Yorker, The Lie Factory, Sept. 24, 2012) but as the article notes, political strategists are alive and well. An Oct. 14, Oregonian article reports that strategists in both the Obama and Romney camps have access to information about our personal lives on a scale never before imagined.

Millions of voters will be receiving calls from campaign volunteers who identify themselves as “friends of friends.” Then, with script in hand culled from $13 million dollars worth of data mined from your online habits (yes, they know if you visited porn or prefer Michelob Lite over Corona) will ask you how you will spend election day (as studies show just asking such questions will increase voter turnout.)

That same hapless target might then see a Facebook post calling out those who do not plan to vote in a “public shaming” ploy. One Romney campaigner says, “You don’t want your analytical efforts be obvious because voters get creeped out.” Well, I don’t know about you, but I am, and it’s got nothing to do with Halloween! Another New York Times article that same day reported on a full court press by advertisers to disable the “Do Not Track” mechanisms now available on many browsers.

Question: Will this creepy following of our online habits, from political strategists to advertisers, backfire at some point? Or is this now the new normal? 

While it might be slightly unfair to blame Whitaker and Baxter for all the annoying political ads we are forced to watch and hear today, I can’t help but to attribute some of this craziness to them.  In The Newyorker.com’s article, The Lie Factory,  Jill Lepore lists the resources and tools that were utilized in a typical campaign during the 40’s. As our resources have expanded exponentially these days, so have the number and methods of political ads. Between pamphlets, TV and radio commercials, internet ads/pop ups and finally ground efforts, the 2012 political campaigns for both presidential candidates have now surpassed 500 million dollars according to MSNBC’s Nightly News. Mit Romney campaign has reportedly spent $273 million, $205 million of which came from his outside resource AKA the Super PACs (Political Action Committee). President Obama is not trailing far back. His campaign has so far spent $239 million dollars $33 million of which comes from the Super PACs supporting him.

The above figures paint an ugly and unfortunate picture about todays politics. It no longer is about the issues facing the nation but rather about the depth of a candidate’s and his suporters’ pocket books. As we clearly observe this massive shift in spending and strategy from the good old days of Whitaker and Baxter’s Campaign Inc. to the present day freak show, what can be expected of future political campaigns to come and what role will  the Super PACs play in the speculated change?