An interesting survey

This survey popped up on my Faeebook feed today and I found it particularly interesting since it is about media and the presidential election (sound familiar?)

The survey will require access to your birth date and likes on Facebook - but since it is done by a student at Yale, I felt OK with that.

There are a bunch of general questions about media and sources and political leanings. Somewhere near the end of the survey it will ask if you want it to analyze the partisanship of the media sources you like.

I'm liberal.

Go figure.

The analysis isn't rocket science, we (at least in this class!) know which media outlets lean left and right. Nevertheless it's signifiant because 1.) someone is studying this and 2.) it's causing people to think about the types of places they get their news.

Also, there is a section where it asks if you would be willing to like mystery Facebook pages in order to broaden your media horizons. I went ahead and liked all four. Two of then were Fox and Breitbart; I haven't figured out the other two.

A big list

The New York Times created a comprehensive list of everyone that Donald Trump has insulted since June 2015. I saw it tonight as I was perusing Facebook.




It's quite a list and many journalists and media outlets get their own column inches of vitriol.

There's a whole section devoted to "the mainstream media." To make it more intelligible, I put it into a word cloud.

Howard Kurtz of Fox News states that Donald Trump and the media are in "an all out war" over Trump's claims of media bias and rigging. News outlets are responding with similarly harsh rhetoric, this Times piece being one example. I get it, Trump and the media are hardly bosom buddies, but can we at least maintain some semblance of balanced reporting? Hillary Clinton has gone negative and her list should also be reported. It is undoubtedly much shorter than Donald's and may ultimately stregnthen the case the Times is trying to make. Nevertheless, it should be part of the picture.

Podcasts: good for democracy

This week I listened to some podcasts: Slate’s Trumpcast, FiveThirtyEight Elections, The Weekly Standard, The Editors: A National Review Podcast, Pantsuit Politics, and The Ticket from the Texas Triune.

Conservatives and liberals agreed that the election is slipping away from Donald Trump. On The Weekly Standard’s instant reaction, Bill Kristol foretold Trump’s doom stating that no candidate with such bad polling numbers has bounced back in the last two weeks of the election.

Discussions of the debate reflected common observations: it was the most disciplined of the three, Trump seemed to lose stamina after the first half hour, Hillary Clinton was successful in pressing his buttons, and he reverted to his typical erratic behavior. Most felt that Trump missed easy and obvious opportunities to skewer Clinton over pay-to-play and the WikiLeaks emails. Many felt that Clinton is a weak candidate and victory over her should have been easy for any Republican candidate – but Trump is not just any Republican candidate.

Trump’s statement about election results was provoking and most commentators, including the National Review, felt that he is laying a narrative to explain his defeat. Trump received universal condemnation for his statements about the election being rigged and many commented on the potential dangers of this rhetoric. Liberals and conservatives were horrified.

A couple of notable quotes/thoughts:

This Weekly Standard did two short “instant reaction” podcasts from conservative commentators after the debate. I liked this format.

The National Review podcast contained a well-aimed zinger, noting that Trump is the one who seems to lack stamina in the debates. It also talked a great deal about Evan McMullin, someone who had flown below my radar until now.

Pantsuit Politics mentioned the potential Trump media network. They said it seems like he is building a mechanism to keep his supporters outraged after the election. There was also an interesting conversation about transparency and whether it should be the gold standard. When are leaked emails crass rather than informative?

The Ticket provided a lens into the Texas political environment. Commentators noted how shocking it is that Trump has only a single digit lead in the state.

Finally, the guests on Trumpcast predicted that the final weeks of his campaign will be a “Breitbart piece of performance art.” Pure poetry.

An additional episode provided a fascinating look at extreme left and right social media pages. I highly recommend this episode; it was the best I heard this week.

A personal note: I have been pretty down this past week over election news. It’s hard to explain as I don’t think anything we have seen is particularly surprising. The negative rhetoric and my disillusion have made it very hard to consume social media and election news. I am not the only one; Google election stress and you will get tons of hits. I was pleasantly surprised to find that podcasts didn’t get me down. The thoughtful conversation - including background and context, excluding yelling and shouts of “wrong” - restored some of my faith in political debate.

Podcasts score one for democracy.    

Some prescient words from Justice Souter

Start at the 3:21 mark to hear his words. There's another excerpt at 9:07.

Rachel Maddow makes a neat case that Trump is the one who is civically ignorant, but I think the problem is with voters.

Is ignorance too easy an answer for the Trump phenomenon?

Podcasts & Politics

This week, I’ve been cramming on podcasts (although I can’t match Jim’s current consumption of 13). It’s an interesting form of media – somewhere between broadcast radio and books-on-tape; a phenomenon made possible by our near-constant use of digital devices and the number of people/media companies looking to increase their market share. The distinguishing feature of a podcast is that it’s often a fairly lengthy discussion of a certain subject – kind of like a radio show – but it is serialized and released episodically – unlike books on tape. Podcasts aren’t subject to the same market forces that drive widely appealing content and thus often have niche topics and audiences. You can find podcasts about everything - even podcasts about podcasting.

According to an article from DigiDay, a media publication and events company, this election season has seen a spate of “pop-up podcasts,” programs that pop up to cover a certain news event or subject and then end when it’s over. Julia Turner of Slate explains, “The interest in focused, breaking coverage of a fascinating news event in creative audio form is really high.” Slate’s pop-up podcast this season is called The Trumpcast; (how amazing is that?) Other examples include the New York Times’ The Run-Up and the Washington Post’s Presidential. On my phone, I have Pantsuit Politics, and The Ticket from the Texas Tribune.

What happens to these podcasts once the election is over? Some will likely end and others (I’m looking at you, Pantsuit Politics) will continue their political coverage. One thing for sure, podcasts are here to stay. According to Pew, 26% of Americans over 12 have listened to a podcast in the past month. This is more than double what it was three years ago. In addition, just under half are familiar with the term podcasting. There are no reliable figures on the numbers of podcasts produced, but commercial podcast hosting companies say the numbers are increasing. In April, Nielsen announced that it would begin measuring podcasts as part of its Digital Audio Ratings Service.

From an economic standpoint, podcasting makes sense. Episodes are relatively inexpensive to produce and provide valuable opportunities to cross-promote content. The ways that we consume media are changing and podcasts offer another option for consumers. They can be links that bring listeners in to consume other content. (Think about the legacy media organizations that are hosting podcasts about the election. It’s substantial). 

What makes podcasts tick? According to Digiday, “having a distinctive voice and brand are crucial.” I don’t disagree. Part of what makes the guys on Keepin It 1600 appealing is their easy banter; you feel like you are part of a special behind-the-scenes conversation. It’s authentic.

How does the proliferation of podcasts affect the election? There are two things to note here. First, as a share of audio listening, podcast only account for 2%. Most people are not listening to podcasts, which means they are getting their news from other sources. Second, podcasts are another example of the personalization of media. Unless you intentionally listen to podcasts with various viewpoints, podcasts tend to be one sided. We know that people choose to listen to media that agrees with their worldviews; podcasts aren’t any different.

Are podcasts going to make a difference in the results of the election? No, but they are an interesting media phenomenon for what they tell us about news and media consumption. As people find their esoteric sources, we continue to move farther and farther away from a common understanding of the problems facing this country. This election demonstrates the severity of that problem.

Dear Donald,

The final debate was your opportunity to make a case to the American people; to tell us what you would do once elected, to inspire us with your vision of a thriving America. You needed to “project the image of a possible commander in chief, and offer a good answer to the accusations of sexual misbehavior.”

For thirty entire minutes you were restrained, you answered the questions, you followed the rules and you looked almost presidential. You looked like you prepared for this final performance and the media noticed.

But then it all fell apart. You began interrupting instead of listening and your interjections of “wrong” without any explanation were simply disrespectful. You need the support college-educated white women to win this election and the debate only made it worse. You had to know that unless you change your tone, women will hand Clinton a decisive victory in battleground states. And yet you didn’t seem to care.

Women are keenly attuned to references about our sexuality and gender. We notice when you mansplain and dismiss the woman on the stage. Interjecting “wrong” when you don’t agree doesn’t help you win us over. Neither does calling Clinton a “nasty woman” under your breath.

What Mr. Trump doesn’t seem to understand is that when men talk about what women look like, what women hear is somebody saying, “There’s something wrong with you. (Susan Chira, NYT)

Using the term “nasty” to describe a woman is a punch in the gut, it cuts to the deep insecurities at the core of our beings; yet you used it – in a public setting, on national TV. Woman are bombarded by expectations - about our appearances, how we should act and the social roles we play. We are told that our natural selves are not acceptable without myriad products, specific grooming practices and the right clothes. Your phrase “nasty woman” uses this expectation as a weapon to cut down a woman. It was a ballsy move and one that you will lose by. Instead of debating the ideas, you reacted in the most despicable way. There is no place for you in the White House.  

Hillary Clinton was right in her portrayal of you in this ad. The debate was a time for you to espouse an inclusive message and make your case. You failed. There is no place for me in your campaign rhetoric; one that shows such a blatant degradation of women.

Sincerely,

The white college-educated woman voter

Social media: distorted incentives

If elections were won or lost on social media, we may be looking at a President Trump in November. Fortunately, there’s more to the equation. 

Social media (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, Vine) has drastically changed aspects of the media and campaign landscape that have previously been taken for granted.

Social media allows candidates to communicate directly with the public without the filtering effect of legacy media. Messages can be delivered directly and instantly, whereas before such messaging had to take the form of mail pieces or phone calls. Traditionally, media would report a candidate’s words – offering context and assessing the truth or validity of the claims. This is bypassed through the use of social media. 

Conversely, mainstream media now reports what is happening on social media as news (Pepe the frog and the Ken Bone phenomenon are two examples). Candidate communications via social media are frequently the subject of stories (for example, Donald Trump’s tweets about Alicia Machado or his claims of media bias).

Social media also provides a platform for those who would otherwise not receive coverage. Black Lives Matter gained momentum through social media networks and is now a topic of reporting by the mainstream media. Additionally, fringe movements and conspiracy theories that would normally be filtered out due to their lack of credibility receive attention and inspire a following. Some examples include calling CNN the Clinton News Network, the fact that Clinton suffers grave neurological problems, or that the warnings about Hurricane Matthew were fabricated as part of a Democratic plot to extend voter registration deadlines. Social media allows these topics to gain momentum and the mainstream press covers them as news.

Social media self-reinforces ideology. People who think alike tend to be friends with each other. Social media news feeds thus reflect the ideologies of the users. In a time when Pew reports that 44% of US adults receive some type of news or information about the 2016 election from social media, the lack of diverse opinions can make a real difference. This Wall Street Journal page shows the differences between Facebook feeds of liberal and conservative individuals. Check out the Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump filters. It’s pretty eye-opening. 

The formatting limits of social media affect the message. Twitter’s 140 character limit favors short, punchy, attention-grabbing communications over lengthier nuance. Such soundbites can and often are mis-interpreted in the absence of context (for example, build a wall or deport them all are much catchier than a more nuanced explanation that takes economic realities into account). 

Social media rewards outrageous comments and exploits. Inflammatory or controversial statements are liked and shared thus giving them a larger audience than the more arcane posts. In the social media world, according to CNN’s Van Jones, “saying and doing crazy stuff just makes you more famous… on Twitter, insulting people and throwing rhetorical bombs doesn't cost you followers. It usually gains you followers. Lots of them.”

Nowhere is this more apparent than in comparing Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump’s social media following. Trump has 12.5 million followers on Twitter and 11.4 million likes on Facebook. Clinton has 9.79 million followers and 7.1 likes respectively. Thus, social media distorts the traditional incentives that guide a candidate: presidential behavior is ignored while bad behavior makes one popular. 

Finally, Twitter reaches influencers. Daniel Kreiss of the UNC School of Media and Journalism notes that this election, “Twitter is primarily a means for campaigns to influence journalists.” It is a space where writers can test stories, float ideas and find out what types of coverage earn clicks (hint: it’s the conspiracy-ridden scandals).

Consensus among journalists – and rightly so – is that Trump is winning the social media wars. Daniel Kreiss notes that the public likes to see authenticity in a candidate and no where is this easier than in the direct link via social media. In fact, Trump supporters cite the unscripted, blunt nature of Donald Trump as a reason that he is so attractive. Trump has also used social media to gain an enormous media following. According to Kreiss, “Trump has used Twitter to great effect in setting the agenda of the professional press.” Van Jones agrees, “The most successful politicians have an innate understanding of [the media] environment and the skill to act on it. In our era, that could be Trump.” 

This makes sense to me. In class, among friends and colleagues, most of us spend more time talking about Trump’s antics than Hillary’s policy ideas. Take a look at the Twitter feeds of both candidates. While Donald is throwing punches and bellowing into the ether, Hillary talks about policy. Which is more interesting? – of course, Donald Trump. It doesn’t make him the best candidate, but in light of these distorted incentives, his popularity is beginning to make more sense.

It's about authenticity

Lyndon Johnson’s 1964 ad, “Confessions of a Republican” is striking because its sentiments are eerily similar to politics in 2016. In the ad, actor and lifelong Republican Bill Bogert, discusses his doubts about Barry Goldwater’s fitness for the presidency.  Some of the most prescient lines include the lack of truth or fact, the absence of policy proposals beyond antagonism, and bewilderment over the transformation of the Republican Party.

In July 2016, Hillary Clinton’s campaign remade the ad with the same actor, updated to today’s race.

It’s compelling for a number of reasons. First, the ad is filmed in black and white, like the original, and retains the same conversational, confessional air. Many lines from the original have been transplanted verbatim into the new version drawing parallels to our current situation. Undercutting the dialogue is the unsettling notion that perhaps nothing has changed over the past fifty-two years.

The ad received coverage on social media, blogs and in Ad Week. Snopes weighed in on the 1964 version’s originality, undoubtedly in response to claims of media rigging. There’s been a lot of that lately.

The ad is also effective because Bill Bogerts’ lines are and feel authentic. In an interview with Rachel Maddow, he stated that his words about Goldwater and Trump are his true feelings. Back then he told producers, if you`re using my name, then it`s got to be stuff that I believe.” He shares the same concerns today when observing the field of Republican contenders, “this is the cream of the crop? You’ve got to be kidding me.”

Authenticity – or the appearance of authenticity – keeps coming up in commentary about political ads:

“People want authenticity and directness from candidates.” Lee Dunn, Google

“[Voters are] demanding authenticity and something that they think is real, and they know that advertising is not real.” Mark McKinnon, former President George W. Bush's chief media strategist and co-founder of No Labels on NPR.

“Voters left, right and center say they crave “authenticity” in their candidates. And though Americans disagree on exactly what the word means in a political context, nobody can deny that the notion of authenticity is having an unprecedented impact on the 2016 race for the White House.” The Daily News during the primaries.

This isn’t new. In 1990, the New York Times write a piece about images of realism in campaign ads noting, “political commercials are increasingly portraying candidates as authentic people who tell the truth.”

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump both strive to demonstrate authenticity in their advertising. Most notable (to me and the panelists on a podcast from Maine Public Radio) is “Mirrors,” which portrays young women looking at themselves in the mirror while audio of Trump making disparaging comments about women plays in the background. It’s a juxtaposition between the innocence of youth and the sexualization of culture exemplified in Donald Trump. On the podcast, Brenda Garrand, owner of a communications firm notes, “The most important quality of advertising today is authenticity…it didn’t take very much for us to have a lump in our throat thinking about the emotions that [these girls] face everyday.”

Donald Trump’s ad, “Motherhood,” features his daughter Ivanka, talking about her father. She emphasizes her family life by describing herself as a mother and wife and refers to Trump as “my father.” She narrates the ad, emphasizing the ways that her father will support working women. Her commentary serves to humanize him, and her conviction is evident. Her appearance in this ad lends her father and his proposed polities authenticity.

Television advertising is carefully crafted to deliver very specific messages about candidates and their opponents; every detail is a conscious decision and the main messages are often focus-grouped for effectiveness. Television advertising is not taken lightly. It is frequently the single most expensive item in a campaign’s budget and thus the stakes are very high. Even though younger Americans are moving away from traditional television viewership, campaigns will continue to include television advertising in their portfolios. It’s been used for years, is an effective way to reach less tech-savy demographics, and imparts powerful messages that stick with voters regardless of whether they realize it. Television advertising is also a symbol of financial power in the political arena, and can be used as a way to intimidate opponents. These ads are covered as news by mainstream media; this shouldn’t be discounted in today’s increasingly digital media environment.

A coda for Ken Bone

In less than a week, Ken Bone experienced a meteoric rise from an unknown Midwestener to folk sensation and brand. There is always a downside to fame and for Ken Bone, his online history is coming back to haunt him.

The very thing that made him famous is now responsible for his demise.

I'm not going to get into the weeds on this. Basically, Ken made a number of unsavory and potentially illegal comments on Reddit some years ago. He returned to the online chat room on Thursday night for an "Ask Me Anything" forum and didn't change his screen-name. Not a real genius move. Interestingly, Ken's response sounds eerily like Donald Trump: “I’m not running for president,” he posted. “I can say whatever I want.”

Shout out to online media: Gizmodo broke the story and was credited for it in the New York Times. Other online sources also covered the story early: The Daily Beast and The Daily Dot. Traditional media jumped in as well. (If you want all the lurid details, stick with Gizmodo's comprehensive coverage.)

Here's a teaser - he talks about "going bareback."

There's some interesting commentary out there about Ken Bone's fall from grace.

Abby Ohlheiser of WaPo comments on the inevitability of the fall: "Ken Bone was a 'hero.' Now Ken Bone is 'bad.' It was his destiny as a human meme."

Carey O'Donnell on Paper writes that your digital past never goes away: "Ken Bone's Icky Internet Activity Was Dug Up, Of Course." 

And Tony Messenger of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch sees Ken's rise as what is wrong in America today. It's an interesting argument, and an overt criticism of the media's coverage of the campaign:

But the media’s obsession with Ken Bone is a symptom of the disease that brought us Donald Trump as a major party candidate for president. As I write this column, a Ken Bone story is the most-read story on the Post-Dispatch website for more than two days running.

The problem is, hardly anybody’s talking about Syria. In a media landscape with fewer reporters than ever, not enough of them are writing about Russia’s unprecedented attempt to interfere in an American election. And almost nobody’s writing about climate change..That topic was at the core of Bone’s question to Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton...

This is the state of public policy in America. Ken Bone asked an important question at the heart of the climate change issue, but we’re not writing about the fact that Donald Trump believes global warming is a hoax invented by the Chinese....Instead, we’re talking about Ken Bone’s red sweater because the truth of our nation’s political duplicity is too hard to swallow.

We're all boneheads

Ken Bone, the sweet faced, red-sweatered father from Belleville, IL has captured my heart – and the hearts of many – after asking a question at Sunday night’s debate. I didn’t notice him at first (his serene demeanor was not remarkable), but his internet stardom caused me to take a closer look at the guy who describes himself as “friendly” and “huggable.” 

Ken Bone is a regular guy, hardly an ordinary claim to fame. But this is not an ordinary time in American politics. This soft-spoken mustachioed Midwesterner symbolizes the bewilderment of everyday Americans as they contemplate this presidential race. Media coverage of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump has transformed these super-famous candidates into grotesque caricatures; vessels of lies, scandals and gross ambition. Thus, Ken Bone’s ordinary question turned him into the extraordinary -  “the man who won the 2nd presidential debate,” an “internet phenomenon” and a “hero.”

Ken Bone plays this role perfectly. He’s honest to a fault (why did he wear that red sweater?), funny (watch him on Jimmy Kimmel) and incredibly relatable (there is no press corps and no private jet; he waits in line at the DMV and has Homer Simpson as his computer background). 

His reaction to his meteoric rise (and criticism) is endearing. He has a Twitter account that he started on Sunday. He follows 46 people and has 1 like. He has over 240,000 followers but during an interview with CNN, clarified that his grandmother accounts for two of these followers. She had to create a new account when she forgot her password.

"Our voice was heard"- Ken Bone, last night’s #debate hero, spoke with me after becoming an internet sensation. https://t.co/puCOxLPhga

— Carol Costello (@CarolCNN) October 10, 2016

You can see Carol Costello struggling to keep a straight face; she calls Ken “refreshingly honest.” He is the antithesis of our presidential candidates and this has made him enormously popular. 

Ken’s rise has been driven by people on social media. In less than a week, he’s gone from a nobody to a somebody with a cult following. He is the subject of numerous tweets and memes (check out best of here); two Halloween costumes (there’s a sexy version of everything), and a song that is now on iTunes and Spotify. He fielded a $100,000 offer from CamSoda (an adult website), inspired merchandise (check out this “Feel the Bone” sweatshirt on Etsy), and discussed endorsement deals (hopefully for mustache wax). Ken Bone’s ripped olive suit inspired a two GoFundMe accounts, and his Izod red sweater sold out multiple times on Amazon. One satisfied customer raved “This cable knit sweater paired with a white oxford is the perfect combo when staring down fascism. The only thing you'll be grabbing while wearing this sweater is the hearts of all Americans. Runs a little small.” Ken Bone has a limited-edition Obama-esque T-shirt and made his first endorsement deal with uberSELECT (he’s being paid in free rides). He’s also now in trouble with the FTC for making said endorsement on Twitter without required legal language.

Megan Garber of the Atlantic sums up the whirlwind: “In the space of a few days, Ken Bone has gone from a man, to a meme, to a celebrity, to a … brand. Or, more specifically, a #brand."

Along the way, he became a social media phenomenon (man, meme, and celebrity) that forced legacy media to stop and take notice. Social media gave birth to this story and traditional media report it as news. How meta.   

Ken Bone represents a certain idea of America: a white, overweight, Midwesterner, working to get by, with a wife and kids, trying to figure out his place in this mess that we call a presidential campaign. His appearance at the debate solidified this status: he has a fantastic name; he wore white tie and red sweater (chosen for him by his wife after a wardrobe malfunction that few would admit to, let alone chuckle about on national television); he is slightly balding with a mustache and dorky glasses; he has a lisp; and he took pictures with a disposable camera – “a ‘90s-tastic disposable camera.” Ken’s earnestness in asking his question and authentic search for a candidate he can support, embodies a political innocence that we wish we had. After months of mud-slinging, we’re exhausted and jaded. Ken Bone isn’t.

He’s a huggable symbol of our anxieties about politics. We want to coddle him and return to that childish sense of wonder. That’s why we love him.

CrochetbyKT from Facebook sent me my new little buddy here! That's so sweet! pic.twitter.com/0iEUyOeMON

— Ken Bone (@kenbone18) October 13, 2016