media representation in politics

For the unit on media representations, I decided to take a closer look at the current presidential election (as, to be honest, it's often on my mind) and see how each candidate and campaign represents both itself and its audience, or in this case, voters.

Some questions I asked myself going into this were:

• what do the websites (Dem, GOP, Obama, McCain) say about the candidates, how they see themselves? how do the colors, logos, messages, words, etc. affect this representation?
• what to the websites say about the candidate's "typical voter"? who is the "typical voter" for each person?
• what do the candidate's ads and commercials say about them, and the people to whom they are trying to communicate?
• what are some of the reactions, in media, journalism, ect., to these candidates and their campaigns (knowing that by no means can I begin to cover it all...)

I got the idea for this analysis from a blog post I read about the two campaign logos--Obama's circle horizon and McCain's dash and star. I think it was a blog on Huffington Post, but I've searched and searched and can't find it, so to summarize, the author (who of course may have a bias) said that Obama's red white and blue logo has a broader appeal, as opposed to McCain's more military emblem, which he likened to the Chevrolet logo. The author also linked to this page, which shows how lots of different special interest groups like "Americans With Disabilities," "Environmentalists," and "Rural Americans" have adapted the basic Obama logo to reflect their own cultures.

I began by visiting the offical Democrat and GOP sites. Admittedly, I was confused when I went to www.gop.com and saw this:

Is Barack Obama the Republican nominee? But no...he doesn't look very trustworthy there, his name is all lowercase, and underneath I see that I can "click here to view the Joe Biden Gaffe Timeline." So this site is all about proving the negative on Barack Obama. But what if I want to learn more about my candidate, John McCain? I have to go the sidebar and do some searching and clicking. To me, this says that Republicans (the website's audience) are not looking to support their candidate, but are looking to trash their opponent, in no uncertain terms.

The Democrat site, www.democrats.org, also shows Barack Obama, but this time he's at a podium, looking proud:

This site seems to be more about the Democratic candidate, with a few headlines about McCain. The "audience" in this case would like to learn more about the candidate they support, and search and click for McCain if they so choose.

Democrats.org also takes advantage of a blue color scheme, with stars shooting out from behind the main screen, while GOP.com is a more somber dark red. Going back to some of the ideas taken from the previous logo discussion, the Dem site seems to be more hopeful and visionary, while the GOP site seems more solid. These representations speak well to each party's base.

Next I visited the websites for each party's candidate. John McCain's website follows the GOP theme of prominently featuring Barack Obama--in a negative light of course:

To be fair, the Obama "Acorn" ad is one of four screens that rotates: the others are all positive ads about McCain. This, not GOP.com, is the home of the presidential candidate. This great site shows how McCain's website has progressed over the course of his campaign. I'm glad he moved away from the all-black page--what was he going for there? Not every constituent was formerly in the military, or wants a candidate who is so bleak.

Moving to the issues, McCain's top three issues on his page are the economy, energy, and national security. This sort of belies the much-trouted idea of Republicans, that they vote according to their morals, which would have put "the sanctity of life" (read: abortion) and "the 2nd amendment" (read: gun rights) at the top. Have no doubt, these issues are there, and the position is clear. A McCain supporter believes in "winning" in Iraq, wants to privatize health care, and puts country first.

The Obama site is very very blue. It also displays four rotating ads: two of which are could be called "positive" Obama ads, and two "negative" McCain ads:

Interestingly though, and I think this is important, in the negative ads, McCain's name isn't highlighted, and his face is only shown in one of them (the Keating ad), and even then it's very small. These are obviously not meant to be loud attention-callers to McCain's character, but instead are about faulty policies and plans. They are subdued and even, if possible, respectful (as compared, at least, to the GOP site). Here's the progression of the Obama site over time.

When you navigate to Obama's "Issues" page, the first thing you see is the link to download the "Blueprint for Change." Change is obviously Obama's main theme, and speaks both of him and of his audience. He is young and visionary--his voters are often the same. But this representation is just like all representations--limited. The "People" site I mentioned earlier points to just a few of the many diverse groups that identify with this visionary leader.

The page lists the issues alphabetically, so there is no meaning to be read from looking at the order. It does include Civil Rights, missing from McCain's site, along with Women, Urban Policy, Poverty, Faith, and more. Missing is any mention of gun control or abortion.

The candidate's TV ads also have a lot to say about both who they are and the audience to whom they are communicating. McCain's recent "Who Is Barack Obama" ad paints his supporters as making the "safe" choice, and anyone who votes for Obama as "too risky," "too dangerous."



But what do these words say? What do they mean? Congressional liberals (read: any liberals) do not have America's interests at heart. This is not a matter of disagreement. This is a matter of good and evil. This ad divides, and it calls its listeners to take sides.

Obama takes the idea of "risky" and uses it a different way. He calls McCain too risky for your finances...but he doesn't insinuate that by voting for him you're risking your life.



This is a "negative" ad that takes real images and facts from newspapers and lets the viewer add it all up. Obama supporters can think for themselves and don't need fear and terrorism images thrown at them in order for them to make a decision.

So far, I haven't brought up the candidates' running mates, but the blog Racialicious.com ties in Palin's "hockey moms" and "Joe Six-Packs" in a posting titled "An open letter to white voters, or what McCain really thinks of you." The post brings in everything from Palin's euphimisms for White to the new GOP idea that bringing out Obama's middle name--Hussein--will scare voters away.

Carmen Van Kerckhove, the author of the blog, writes:

The McCain campaign is doing its best to paint Obama as a shadowy Manchurian candidate who is un-American, unpatriotic, dangerous, sympathetic to terrorists, and possibly even a secret Muslim (needless to say, that’s a bad thing in their eyes).

That much is obvious.

But what does their strategy say about what they think of you, the white voter?

Judging from their messaging, they seem to be stereotyping white voters as closed-minded, paranoid, naive, xenophobic, and just a tad bit racist.

And they are certainly connecting successfully with people who match this profile.

In terms of representation, I thought this brought up a very interesting point. Who are McCain's voters, in his opinion? If Palin were to answer, she'd say White suburbanites, and while this answer makes many people comfortable and happy and "safe"--it marginalizes and disturbes so many others. What about me? I'm White, but I'm not suburban, or a mom, and I've never played hockey. I don't drink six-packs of beer. And my neighbors are Black and Muslim. Why should I vote for you?

Obama's voters, on the other hand...well that's harder to define. They are the "People" on his site, and they are anyone who identifies with his message of change. Some people have claimed difficulty relating to Obama as a person, and to his campaign, so this might be a case where the definition of who is being represented is murky. But I wonder--is that such a bad thing? Is it better for representation to be undefined than narrow?

(As I'm sure any reader has noticed, I have my own political biases, but I did try and look at each site with a critical eye during this research).