TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2004
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN OF
OPINION
bed tepp's epp is
Going curly stuck
loved in success,
it does people and get event,
and U.S. event, used the
d that I
eyed him
encour-
rance at
with the
review in.
insist the
school to
to make
hingston,
city had
with a few
right to
d I got
n con-
his high
ae Lion's
iren with
mampaign .
rts for the
activity on
group of
justice, like
ws that he ill out his
ironment,ed such a
Talk shows aren't only form of information
BY KIM SWEET RUNESTEIN
Special to the Kansan
CORPORATION@KANSAN.COM
Editors Note: The following is a political analysis from a student in Journalism 801: Research 1. It does not reflect the views of The University Daily Kansan.
During the 2000 presidential race, David Letterman was noted for telling then Gov. George Bush in an appearance on his show nearly a month before the election that "the road to Washington runs through me."
Letterman's quip was quickly dismissed by the audience with obligatory laughter. But had he been able to see ahead to the boost Bush's Late Show appearance had on the governor's poll numbers, perhaps Letterman wouldn't have been so flip.
A national survey taken the week after Bush's Late Show appearance showed the governor had a higher favorability rating with Letterman viewers than with non-viewers. Just a couple of weeks before, there was no difference between the two groups, according to a study on the priming effects of late-night comedy done by researchers at the University of Washington.
There is no question that political candidates are convinced that appearing on talk shows and late-night television increase the likelihood for a win at the polls in November. Why else would they do it? Richard Nixon is credited for being the first candidate to cross the entertainment-news show divide when he appeared on Laugh-In and said "sock it to me." He went on to be the victor in the race against vice president Hubert Humphrey.
Bill Clinton became legendary for his presence on entertainment television when in 1992 he showed off his saxophone-playing skills on the Arsenio Hall Show.
In 2004, the road to elected
once seems to require pit stops at chairs next to Letterman, Leno and Jon Stewart. Along with poking fun of one's self-image while reading Letterman's Top Ten List, candidates and their wives appear on Oprah and Live with Regis and Kelly. They are even having heart-to-heart conversations with Dr. Phil. The president and the first lady sat down with Dr. Phil and his wife in the last month, as did John Kerry and Teresa Heinz-Kerry. Both couples shared intimate details about their marriage and family relationships with the television psychologist.
Clearly, entertainment shows are playing a growing role in political communication. And it's easy to understand why. Bush's appearance on the Late Show in 2000 garnered him 13 minutes of uninterrupted exposure. That exceeded the entire time allotted to him on news shows on all three networks during the entire month of October, according to Media Monitor, a
publication produced by the Center for Media and Public Affairs. Al Gore's appearance on the Late Show the month before had similar results, giving him more airtime in one sitting than a month's worth of newscasts on all three networks.
There are other advantages as well. Appearing on the talkshow circuit gives candidates an opportunity to step out from the snippets that appear on the evening news and the characterizations formed by journalists and pundits following the campaign. Chatting it up with Letterman and Leno and revealing their senses of humor helps candidates convey an image of a real person — and warm up to the electorate.
Doing the rounds of late-night talk shows also puts candidates in touch with a different segment of the voting population. A six-month study completed recently by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found that people ages 18 to 29 were less likely to watch
the news or read the newspapers and more likely to watch late-night television shows. Similar studies done by the Pew Center back up the contention that fewer young people peruse the daily newspaper or sit down to watch the local or national newscast.
So what's the effect of utilizing entertainment-based programming in political communication? Some make the argument that the increasing emphasis put on such shows by candidates will lead to a larger segment of the electorate voting based on a candidate's image rather than their issue stance. In the University of Washington study, for example, researchers said those who expressed favorable opinions of Bush after his Late Show appearance felt he "really cared about citizens." Did that mean that Gore, in turn, did not care? And to what stance does caring translate to when it comes to issues such as health care and social security?
An extension of that concern is young voters' reliance on entertainment shows for political knowledge. The University of Washington researchers point out that much of the content consumed by young people when it comes to political decision-making is personality-based. It seems at some point, in order to truly be considered politically active citizens, young people will have to make the jump from making entertainment shows their sole source of information to seeking information from other sources as well.
After all, Steven H. Chaffee and Stacey Frank Kanihan point out in their article Learning about Politics from the Mass Media that television news and the newspaper are complementary in their contributions to political knowledge. While television provides rudimentary knowledge of the American political system, voters must go beyond it to truly be engaged citizens.
MTV's slogans too extreme, now that's not cool
BY SAMANTHA SAUMEL
Special to the Kansan
CORRESPONDENT@KANASAN.COM
Editors Note: The following is a political analysis from a student in Journalism 801: Research 1. It does not reflect the views of The University Daily Kansan.
Choose or Loose! Vote or Die! Please, is it really that extreme? The past six months brought relentless campaigning. Like most election years, the television and radio screamed at people to vote for a specific candidate. The 2004 campaign possessed a different element. MTV carried the responsibility of inspiring the 18-25 year old demographic to vote, period. While the notion is pure, voting is much more than what MTV makes it out to be.
MTV takes a liberal and democratic approach to society. The network hides behind the illusion of bipartisanship when in reality their promotional tools are anything but that.
President Bush directly opposed the issues raised by MTV this election year. Gay marriage and the war against terrorism will play major roles in this election. Both issues will stir controversy and branded their marks on President Bush.
Intentions of the MTV campaign are obvious. Its target market is the unknowing youth of America. MTV has made voting the cool thing to do, not the right thing to do.
Unsuspecting adolescents will head to the polls, not with knowledge of the issues or the candidates, but with a firm belief that their vote will make them
Insuspecting adolescents will head to the
polls, not with knowledge of the issues or the candidates, but with a firm belief that their vote will make them cool in the eyes of Puff Daddy and Malcolm X's daughter.
cool in the eyes of Puff Daddy and Malcolm X's daughter.
This cynicism does not stem from a firm belief in the republic, or an undying devotion to George W. Bush. The question must be asked, where was MTV in prior elections? Yes, it was
around, meekly urging for their viewers to vote. However, when has it devoted an entire Video Music Awards program to voting? Or in what other election year has it developed elaborate marketing schemes in different cities of the country? Simply put, MTV has never taken an interest of this magnitude in any election.
So why does this year stand out for MTV? What was it about this president that triggered a voting frenzy? The theory of spiral of silence suggests people with certain opinions will not express them unless they feel their opinion is widely shared.
The issues of this presidential election are very controversial. So much in fact that some are afraid to express their opinion, or do not know how to do so at all. Social isolation is common among people ages 18-25. Not wanting to be different among peers falls equally at some level or another.
MTV approached the election issues in a one-sided manner. According to MTV, if we do not choose they way it tells us — then we lose. If we do not vote the way it tells us — then we die.
MTV has made any opinion other than its own the minority. By introducing voting issues like gay marriage and the war on terror into mainstream pop culture, it has created a social isolation greater than peer pressure. Differing opinions are not just different, but they will now not be voiced because the network has said that their views are not cool.
MTV's intentions were pure. However its history as a liberal its voting campaign. The intensity of their commercials towards the final days of the campaign
proved it to be one-sided and partisan. Social issues are things everyone has a right to form an opinion on. They also have that right to express their opinion, whether it is popular or not.
MTV has not taken away the right to express differing opinions. However it has successfully created a breed of voters who want to hear nothing but what they agree with. MTV did not aid these people in learning how to form their own opinions or critically think about the issues.
That is what is important in an election. Becoming educated on the issues and forming an opinion is a civic duty and responsibility. MTV has made a mockery of the electoral process and cheapened it. The network needs to stick to reality TV and leave politics to the people who understand it.
As your State Representative Tom Holland:
- Fought to put more money into Kansas public school classrooms
- Introduced legislation to control spiraling health care costs for the self-insured
- Cut taxes for 31,000 small Kansas businesses and eliminated wasteful spending in state government
- Eliminated offshore outsourcing of state services
- Introduced legislation to strengthen penalties against employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants
Tom Holland is the mainstream candidate who best represents the values of the 10th District. Please vote for him on Nov. 2nd.
http://www.tomhollandforkansas.org
Paid for by Tom Holland for Kansas • Tony Brown, Treasurer