MCS in Mass.

Yesterday three political reporters, Jill Lawrence of USA Today, Mark Stencel of Governing Magazine and Mary Carey of The Daily Hampshire Gazette spoke to a crowd of mostly Journalism students and faculty at UMass-Amherst. The discussion focused on the coverage of the current Presidential race and the continued evolution of political coverage in recent years. Here are some of points made by the panel over the course of the discussion:

• Jill Lawrence talked about the ”firehouse” effect of today’s political coverage—there’s a ton of content out there. How are to we know whats newsworthy and whats not?

 ”Step back once in awhile,” said Lawrence, “turn the firehouse off.”  She suggested reading foreign publications of American politics to recenter your focus to what’s newsworthy and what’s not.

Mark Stencel, formerly of the Washington Post’s online publication and currently of Governing magazine, talked about the current campaign,the increased technology in web coverage, and the good and bad that goes along with it.

• Stencel talked about the reasoning behind Obama Campaign’s success, “[The Obama Campaign] lets their supporters drive their campaign.”
• He talked about some of creative and informative ways online news has reached out to specific communities on the election process, like The Christian Science Monitor’s new online endeavor.
• Stencel discussed the challenge behind of political coverage to remain accurate but also relevant on the speedy web. “Everyone is in the breaking news business,” but ultimately, Stencel said, “We rather be right than first.”

Mary Carey talked about the perception of candidates, and what the public views as “robotic” or “authentic.” She talked about the local angle of a small paper in a big time campaign, and the hesitancy of a small papers to blog because of the conversational tone and its possible threat to objectivity.

–Political Action Committees are organization that are united in feelings toward a candidate or cause that a candidate supports.

–The committee may use their money in the political process but are not immune to Federal Election Commission(FEC) campaign regulations.

The funds raised by PACs fall under “hard money”—finances that are given directly to those seeking federal elective office and therefore are regulated by the Federal Election Commission (FEC). “Soft money,” goes unregulated by FEC because it is not given directly to candidates for federally elected positions. However, interpretation of the what exactly soft money is leads down a not-so-clear path that forces some interesting questions. Does giving to a party for “party building activities”—often used against the opposition, differ from donating to a specific candidate’s campaign?

Here are a few of those blurry examples from past elections, as reported by the Washington Post:

Starting in late 1995, the Democratic National Committee used soft money to pay for a months-long blitz of television commercials, basically indistinguishable from campaign ads, that bolstered Clinton in the polls.

The Republican National Committee at one point spent soft money on a 60-second commercial crafted by Dole’s advertising team with footage originally shot for the Dole campaign. The ad devoted 56 seconds to Dole’s biography and four seconds to the issues.

In 2002, legislation known as the McCain-Feingold Act was written to cap “soft money” donations. A Hoover Institute campaign finance website lists the following as the objective of McCain Feingold:

The bill would prohibit all soft money contributions to the national political parties from corporations, labor unions, and wealthy individuals. State parties that are permitted under state law to accept these unregulated contributions would be prohibited from spending them on activities relating to federal elections, including advertising that supports or opposes a federal candidate. In addition, federal candidates would be prohibited from raising soft money. These provisions would shut down the Washington soft money machine, prohibiting the $100,000, $250,000 and even $500,000 contributions that for the last decade have flowed to the political parties.

The actual effects of the bill have been questioned.

The 1997 film, Wag the Dog, displays how political spin and manipulation can effect mass media and corrupt the democratic process. In the film the President of the United States becomes embroiled in a sex scandal and attempts to divert media attention by waging a fake war with extremists abroad. Does any of this sound familiar? Think back a decade or so.

Just days after confessing to an “inappropriate relationship” with former White House intern, Monica Lewinsky, President Clinton bombed both Sudan and Afghanistan. Here’s a 1998 write-up on the odd coincidence between Wag the Dog and The Lewinsky scandal from David Corn of The Nation.

In more recent times we have questioned current Pres. George W. Bush’s motives on the the ongoing war(s) in the Middle East and the Mass Media’s inability to fully inform the public on the conflict in Iraq. Whether this war, or that 1998 bombing it seems political manipulation was at least pondered by the opposing side.

Regardless of then or now, sex scandal or yellow cake scandal, the film illustrates a potentially terrifying notion; government can manipulate the media and therefore the viewing public—the tail’s wagging the dog.

Overall I thought the movie was well done and more insightful than expected. The situation presented may be extreme, but the message is poignant and far from from unrealistic.

Among those battling for President, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and current Illinois Senator Barack Obama offer a variety of similarities and differences. Aside from party affiliation, campaign funding, abortion stance or even physical appearance each candidate’s message reverberates with different groups, exemplified by Sen. Obama’s presence on the internet social network, Facebook. Obama’s group claims more than ten times the membership than Huckabee’s. Each candidates ability to orate has been praised by the press, even if their styles are different. The interpretation of shared and contrasting characteristics between Mr. Obama and Mr. Huckabee could be debated for the length of this assignment, for our interest we will narrow the focus to each candidates respected website.

Empirical evidence suggests a continued boom in internet usage among media consumer, a trend that will surely continue as the tech generation strolls into their thirties.

The Huckabee, Obama Website Analysis

As of yesterday, Mike Huckabee has less than $2 million cash on hand, while Mr. Obama currently has over $18 million cash on hand according to opensecrets.org. The wide gap in campaign funds may go a long way in explaining each candidate’s website. Banners advertising “Ways You Can Help Mike” and “Contribute” flank the former Arkansas Governor’s site. While the Senator’s website has a single red “Donate” button in the site’s top right corner. Mr. Obama’s homepage is built around the Jesse Dylan endeavor, Yes We Can, a Dipdive production depicting a chorus of various celebrities singing/echoing Obama’s post New Hampshire Primary words. The video has more than 4 million hits on YouTube. Mr. Huckabee’s site also offers various video clips (reel at middle of page) focused on revealing Mike Huckabee the person. A similar personalization tactic is employed by the Illinois Senator, although his encompasses his wife, Michelle and children on a greater level. Obama has reached into several mediums on the site, Barack TV, Mobile updates, slide shows and various downloads, including body icons and desktop backgrounds.

It’s interesting to note Obama’s site offers a Store feature where traffickers can order clothing, hats, posters, and accessories, Mr. Huckabee’s site does feature a online shopping mall. While the reasoning behind such a difference–money, effective interest, etc. can be debated, the contrast does offer a window into the supporting demographics of each candidates.

The Issues section of Mr. Obama and Mr. Huckabee‘s websites illustrate different approaches. Obama has listed the issues in alphabetical order, offering a stance on each. Huckabee lits the issues in order of importance starting with Securing America and ending with Politicization of the Federal Judiciary. Mr. Huckabee also addresses Social Issues like Abortion and Marriage in detail, while Obama’s site only mention the same issues in broad terms.

Mr. Obama dedicates entire webpages to his relationship with, and support of individuals from a variety of backgrounds, ethnicities  and viewpoints, while Mr. Huckabee makes no  mention of the different groups supporting his candidacy. This agrees with each candidates focus, Huckabee has accepted his appeal to the religious right, Obama has made an effort to reach across political and racial divides for prospective voters.

Media has long established Obama as the candidate of the youth movement, his campaign seems to agree. There site is youth friendly, with a heavy multimedia presence and a variety of new age options, including Obama ring tones. The same can not be said for Huckabee. His site appears reserved on maintaining a fairly simple arrangement focused more on eliciting contributions and less on trendy features.