Something Needs to be Done

When I sat down to think about what needed to be changed about political communication, it took me quite some time to get anywhere. I could think of little things that drove me crazy about campaigns, or the media, but I wanted to dig a bit deeper. Then in hit me. I think that political communication needs to be changed as whole. Now this might sound a bit crazy considering that technological advances have come a tremendous way and most people in our country are probably just fine with the way things are. But does anybody really approve of how we get our information? I mean if you really sat down and thought about it, would you really like the way things are communicated politically in this country? Does anybody even know what to believe anymore? For this last blog, I will touch on many of the ideas that lead me to this accusation over the last 16 weeks.

First off, let us explore the media. When I say media, I am speaking of the news, the radio, and the internet in terms of how we are informed of political news. I think it is safe to say that we all know that Fox news tends to be the more conservative news program, and CNN the more liberal. The rest of the major news channels could be considered non- biased, but is there even such thing? No matter which station you are watching, the news will always be spun a different way. This makes it really hard for citizens to know what to believe. I think that each news channel needs to report politics how it is. Not spinning in different directions and no reporting on what they think is right. Just tell us the political news straight up, no gimmicks. If this could happen, we would all be better informed, know more about each position of anything political, and would be better educated to make decisions as voting citizens.

The internet is another way that many people get information about political candidates, policies, and just political issues going on in general. Much like the news stations, depending on which web browser you use, the headlines that pop up will be skewed. For example, AOL is said to be on the conservative side, Yahoo on the liberal side. With this being said, it is safe to say that if you read an article about, oh let’s just say President Obama, on AOL, it will most likely be from a conservative standpoint. So you might be thinking, well what about when I get my facts straight from an accredited political website or right from a candidates website. Well, it is still going to be skewed one way or another. Going to a candidate’s website is a great way to learn more about them and their stance on policies, but unless you visit each candidate’s website and really read about them, you will have a skewed version of politics yourself. Basically, it can be really hard to tell if you are getting a completely un biased approach to politics over the internet. I think I can assume that unless you want to sit down and read an entire bill or proposed bill, you might not be getting the whole truth.

NPR radio is something that a lot of people who are into politics listen to. If I had to pick the most unbiased way to get my political news this would be it. Generally, NPR has radio hosts from all sides of the political realm making it a pretty fair and well rounded way to get political news. However, this is much like the TV news stations. I am sure that most people who listen to NPR have a favorite show they like to listen to and the host of that show is probably in tune with their political affiliation. Therefore, when you listen to your favorite show on NPR, you are still only getting one point of view and opinions.

Ok so what about the candidates themselves? We should be able to trust what comes out of their mouths because there is no one to analyze it. Well how truthful are the candidates really? How truthful is congress really? I guess we might not really know. My wish is that we could see a candidate that is not being paid by big corporations. A candidate who is true to themselves and appears to have flaws like an actual human being. A candidate who actually stands for something. I am not trying to say that our presidents or candidates don't have their own opinions, but sometimes it is hard to know if they are being paid to say something, or if they truly believe in what they are saying. Even when a proposed bill such as health care is in the works, are we really being told about every angle of the approach? Is congress leaving anything out that would scare the citizens of the country?

This brings me to my final point. What if we just want to hear political news without all the mumbo jumbo? What if we want to hear what a candidate has to say without billions of dollars behind him or her? Where can we go? I wish I knew the answer and I wish that we could have a place to get the real information. The fact of the matter is, this will probably never change. As long as we are living in a world full of technology and money, things will most likely always be skewed. The best thing we can do is try to use multiple sources for our political news. This at least can enable us to know all perspectives and be extremely educated. I hope that one day we might be able to see a candidate that doesn't take bribes, or a news station that truly just reports on the news.

Keep Religion Out of it!

Religion and politics: Two extremely different topics yet unfortunately related. The subject of politics and religion has always set me off since my belief is to keep religion out of politics completely which clearly has not been the case for many, many decades. When this country was founded, the constitution separated church and state for a reason. Now, I feel as though there are always religious issues interfering with politics.

Let’s start at the beginning. Separation between church and state has been around since the beginning of civilization. Ancient China, the Roman Empire, Islamic government and medieval Europe were just a few ancient civilizations that believed in this separation. Thomas Jefferson was the first president of the United States to support separation between church and state. Jefferson was a religious man himself, but argued that religion was very personal and should be kept to ourselves. Therefore, it was imperative to leave religion out of government.
Since then, the first amendment has been in force. I, much like President Jefferson, believe that religion is a very personal belief that should be completed eliminated from politics.

Issues involving religion and education are perennial topics of public debate. Members of various faith traditions often find themselves on opposite sides of conversations related to school prayer, the teaching of evolution and creationism, vouchers, the use of school space by religious groups, the recitation of the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and the question of how to teach about religion. While some argue that religion has an important role to play in public education, others maintain that a strict wall of separation is needed when it comes to religion and public schools.

The problem of religion and politics defines another set of issues. Church and state deals with the relationship of institutions that are independent of each other. Religion and politics has to do with two spheres of activities in the life of the same persons. Citizens who belong to religious groups are also members of the secular society, and this dual association generates complications. Religious beliefs have moral and social implications, and it is appropriate for people of faith to express these through their activities as citizens in the political order. The fact that ethical convictions are rooted in religious faith does not disqualify them from the political realm.

Now, I realize that sometimes this is hard given that some people think certain ways about issues based on their religious beliefs which if fine. But is it really necessary to state your religious opinions when talking about politics? Not only does this create conflict, but it also is one of the reasons why our country has become so divided. Let me reiterate, religion is a personal belief and it should remain that way! There is a reason that we have freedom of religion.

Politics Online

Politics have really changed since the technological advance of the internet. Before, all of our information on candidates and issues came directly from the television, the newspapers, or from the politicians themselves. With the development of the internet, we can now get any information we want on any political issue without turning on a TV, buying a news paper, or really put much effort into it at all.
With the past election, I remember receiving at least 10 emails a day regarding either the candidates themselves or one of the major issues. Not only was I receiving emails constantly, but I could not get on the internet without all of the headlines being about the election. This has created a way for American’s to get the useful information that they need at an incredible convenience. Even if you don’t have any interest in the campaigns or elections, if you use the internet, you can’t really get away from it, which is turn, can make people a lot more informed.
The internet allows people to get a lot of information really quickly and without much effort at all. They can choose directly where they get their information from and pick and choose from thousands of sources. I think that this advance in technology has definitely helped people be willing to vote and creates a bigger voter turnout.
The internet has also been useful in polling. There are tons of political polls online that most people cannot avoid. Even if you are not looking at a political article or website, chances are, you will come across a poll that is so quick and easy to do, you just can’t resist giving your opinion. These are useful in order to gage which candidate appears to be ahead without the campaigns using much effort or money at all.
Of course, while the internet is a fabulous toll for politics, many people believe that it has led to more false news and propaganda. This is certainly true however I feel that this propaganda would happen even without the internet in place. News is news no matter how you look at it and there would still be propaganda and lies in newspapers, commercials and radio. I think you just have to realize when something could be false and only go to credible websites that have credible news and articles.
Overall, I think that the internet has helped the political realm in many ways. Voter turnout has increased, there is much more information available, and as long as people are involved, the internet will always remain a great source and a useful aid in politics.

Polling: Advantages and Disadvantages

Political polling has become one of the most important aspects of elections, especially presidential elections. There are many different types of polling which I would like to explore in today's blog. Each polling type has its advantages and disadvantages which I found very interesting to explore.

Exit polling according to the text book is defined as "interviews conducted with voters as they leave the polls on election day". These are the polls that are used to make the predictions on election day that everyone watches on television. The bennifit to these polls is that we can sometimes predict early on what the results will be. The downfall to this type of polling is that sometimes people do not participate or will not give an honest answer. This creates skewed results and like we saw in they Bush/Gore election, results that ended up being false and putting the country in a state of confusion.

Sampling is another type of polling in which a random sample is taken from the population. Everyone has the same chance at being chosen to participate making it truely random. This type of pollins can be acturate and provide up to date results. The downside to this type of polling can be much the same as exit pollins. Sometimes, people are not willing to give their honest and true opinions which can scew the results greatly.

The next type of pollins is "push polling". Hollihan states that this type of "polling occurs when someone attempts to to influence someone while using the deception that they are merely conducting a poll". Because of this, these polls are usually not very credible and can also discourage people from participating in polls in the future. These types of polls obviously do more harm and can not be trusted.

Mail surveys, which we all get and usually just throw away, are usually low cost and easy to distribute. These types of surveys can either be sent to a specific grouping of people or to the general population as a whole. This type of survey really depends on what the researcher is trying to get out it. These can be useful, but in current times it is generally pretty hard to get people to send back these surveys or to take the time to do them.

Telephone interviews are something we all probably grow to hate. I know that when I get a call from a campaign to state my opinion I usually just hang up. This is the most common type of political polling. These usually can be completed fairly quickly but if your like me, you probably don't even take the time to hear the fisrt questions. While these interviews can be very effective, the issue of economic class biases exsist. Hollian writes that "African Americans and Hispanic Americans are often underrrepresented in phone polls, elderly citizens may be less likely to respond to pollsters, and that as a result postratification statistical manipulations must be used to weight the dadta to ensure propor samples".

Internet polls are something that we see every day, even when an election is not happening. Since most of the population has acess to the internet, these polls can be pretty effective depending on how they are conducted and what company is conducting them. For instance, it has been proven that the AOL Time Warner company is genearlly conservative much like most of their subscribers. When they post a poll online for subscribers to take, the results are genearlly biased twords conservatives. This is the same for network news websites. If we could come up with a way to make these internet polls less bias, they would be extremely effective and fast.

While these are not all the ways to poll, they were some of the more interesting ways that I chose to explore. Sometimes it is hard to trust these polls based on the way they were conducted, but it is important to have these polls in order to gain a sense of what the population is thinking,

Political Advertising

Political advertising has come a long way since the beginning of politics. For one, our media and technology has changed so much. I wanted to explore all the effects of negative political advertising on not only the candidates and issues but also on the voters. We all know that advertising can be a very negative thing and sometimes makes you wonder what is true and what is not.
To begin, advertising comes from many different sources. Newspaper, radio, magazines, television, signs, buttons and bumper stickers, just to name a few. Not only do political candidates make use of these sources but so do organizations that stand behind certain issues. Around election times, it is almost impossible to step out of your house and not be surrounded by advertising everywhere you go.
I personally think that policital advertising has helped create the huge divide between our country. It is no secret that out country is more divided now than it ever has been before. With all the negative ads and the horrible lies how could we not be? For those of us who are not involved in politics other than just to vote, these ads can be extremely confusing and even cause people not to vote at all.
MSNBC published an article in 2006 after some research had been done during the 2004 election. Dr. Marco Iacoboni, a professor at UCLA concluded that viewers seemed to lose empathy for their own candidate once he was attacked. What is even more shocking is that in the last eight years, political parties are spending much more money on negative ads than positive ads. Maybe this is because politics has become about attacking one another and not focusing on the issues. “Negative ads make supporters of the attacker more likely to vote and followers of the victimized candidate depressed and less likely to vote”, said Stanford University communications professor Shanto Iyengar. “These ads do not get people to switch sides”, Iyengar said. "You can't get them to vote for you, but maybe you can get them to stay home."
With this research, it is shocking to me that the negative political ads keep growing. As a voter, I don’t really care to hear what one candidate can say badly about another. I want to hear honest views on the issues and more about the candidates themselves, not the bad things about the other. In the last election, I felt that even in the debates there was more negative words than I ever remember hearing in past elections. Its not wonder people stay home on Election Day. Why would you want to vote for someone who spends millions of dollars bashing someone else?
While the negative ads may leave an imprint in my brain, I personally would rather not watch them. Since I think it is of utmost importance to vote, I try to take every political ad that I see or hear with a grain of salt. I try to go online and read policy issues instead of watch TV to see peoples dignity shattered. With all these negative ads and very few ads about the candidates themselves, it is no wonder people feel like they cannot make an educated decision on who to vote for.


Works Cited Borenstein, Seth. "This is your brain on negative ads." 3 Nov. 2006. Web. 9 Oct. 2009. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15549677//.

Hollihan, Thomas A. "Political Advertising." Uncivil Wars Political Campaigns in a Media Age. Boston: Bedford/ St. Martin's, 2009. 136-60. Print.