Are we not (wo)men? We are sheeple!
Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:03:05 PM PDT
Not a candidate diary!
I listen to a lot of progressive talk radio and am outraged by the number of calls like the one I heard recently. A woman who described herself as well-informed about the issues and the candidates' positions on them said, "I've been having a hard time deciding between Hillary and Obama. I was starting to lean towards Obama but the media has been dumping on Hillary so much that now I'm starting to lean towards her."
To which I yelled, "Why don't you make up your own flippin' mind?!?"
Well, that wasn't all I said...
Why is it that during the most exciting and meaningful primary race in years, at a time when turned-off, tuned-out voters are showing up at polls and caucuses in unbelievable numbers, in the age of the internet with its instant access to factual information, that anyone would allow their vote to be swayed by anything done, or perceived to be done, by the media? It doesn't matter whether media coverage pushes you toward or away from a candidate. The point is that no one should ever grant the media permission to determine, or significantly influence, one's single precious vote.
Statements by campaign strategists, surrogates, publicity coordinators, and the like are the candidate's responsibility, though not to the extent that the candidate's own statements are. While I felt bad about the Texas state senator who couldn't name one of Obama's legislative accomplishments on the spot, a candidate surrogate, especially one who is himself a politician, should be able to respond authoritatively. That's not a surrogate who represents his candidate well, but he does represent his candidate and his dumbfoundedness can be a legitimate factor in your assessment of the Obama candidacy if you choose to give it any consideration.
The same reasoning doesn't necessarily apply to campaign advertising. If the campaign financed the ad, the candidate is responsible for its content. Be aware, though, that advertising can be funded by others, like 527s, that are not supposed to promote any candidate or be affiliated with any campaiign, so candidates who follow the rules don't have any influence over the content of such ads. But ads in which the candidate says, "I'm ____ and I approve this message" are fair game when assessing a candidate's qualities and qualifications.
Being influenced by surrogates and campaign ads is understandable. However, I object to people who are swayed by the talking heads - the "experts" and "analysts" who exist outside the campaign but want to persuade voters that they're sort of "external insiders." The ones who advocate for a candidate, whether they're overt about it or pretend to be impartial, and expect their audience to adopt their views because they know more than we do. Listen to these people - and to the callers to their show, or the commenters on their blog - and recognize them for what they are. Try to see through the subtle ways they try to sway you and fact-check everything they claim "proves" the validity of their opinion. Being swayed by the facts is an expected part of evaluating a candidate. Being coerced by a manipulator should not be allowed to happen.
Think for yourself. Select a candidate to vote for (or, if necessary, to vote against) based on the merits of the candidacy, not the coverage. The criteria that you apply are up to you. But always bear in mind that the media has extensive expertise in the art and science of coercion. The 3AM phone call is a prime example of how an ad can be used to invoke fear, uncertainty, dread, and insecurity about an Obama presidency without directly attacking Obama. It's all manipulation by a clever media that knows how to push buttons you may not be aware you have. Coercion can take many subtle forms - watch for it. Then, make up your own mind!
Permalink | 13 comments