A Reflection on an Invaluable Experience

This post will be my attempt to summarize a semester packed with new concepts, eye-opening experiences, and personal growth. I would like to preface this post by thanking Dr. DeWitt and Dr. Azriel for making me learn and grow in my last semester of college, even as my senioritis had me convinced that I would simply coast through.

Three concepts I’ve learned this semester are “framing,” “narrative,” and “confirmation bias.” Framing refers to the way the media covers stories. In relation to the field of political communication, framing refers to the way the media covers the election. Four common frames which we used this semester are “horse race,” “issues,” “conflict,” and “candidate attributes.” Each of these frames is used by the media to tell different types of stories or possible the same story in different ways. Framing is very important, as it can play a notable role in the way a story is interpreted by consumers and the amount and type of consumers who will read or listen to the story.

The term “narrative” in relation to political communication refers to the stories or themes the candidates attempt to weave into their campaigns. For instance, Bernie Sanders’s narrative is that he is not a big shot politician with all the power, but rather, he’s a simple man who cares for the common man and the oppressed, and will fight vigilantly for them. This narrative is present in his speeches, in his advertisements, in his interviews- everywhere. This narrative is important, because without it, Sanders’s message could be very ill-received, as he identifies as a “Democratic Socialist,” a term that on its face would not sit well with many Americans. His narrative is what sells him, what encourages people to explore his policies and get onboard.

Confirmation bias is a concept which addresses the natural tendency for people to seek information which confirms their own preconceived beliefs. This includes reading articles with polls or facts which affirm one’s beliefs, or those with opinions which are consistent with one’s own, or choosing media outlets which tend to spin the news in a way which is consistent with a particular political party. This concept is particularly important, because it explains much of the current situation in the United States, which consists of a significantly biased and defensive public. In general, the American people tend to subscribe to a particular side and/or candidate, and we consume any positive information we can about said side and/or candidate, and we do our best to ignore any information which is at odds with out beliefs. To go a step further, we tend to pick sides and/or candidates which we oppose, and do our best to refute any facts or arguments which are in favor of said sides and/or candidates. As much as we like to blame the candidates and parties for being divisive, which arguably most are, this is a phenomenon which naturally occurs as a function of human nature.

The first project we did was a content analysis. We were instructed to choose two campaign websites and analyze their use of text, symbols, colors, links, etc., as well as positive or negative messaging, in order to promote their overarching goals. Our group chose the campaign websites of Bernie Sanders and Marco Rubio. We sought to explore why Sanders had been so much more successful in gaining the support of young voters than Rubio had. This question was particularly interesting to us because Sanders is the oldest candidate in the race and Rubio was the youngest. I specifically analyzed user-friendliness and word choice, through which we were able to determine that Sanders’s website is specifically aimed toward young voters, while Rubio’s was not. The issues section of the campaign websites were particularly interesting, as they were vastly different. Above, you can see the issues section of Sanders's campaign website. We took note of the way that Sanders's team worded each issue so that they read more like calls to action rather than a laundry list of talking points.

The first two news stories we did required attendance at two separate campaign events. Our group attended the Donald Trump rally, Hillary Clinton’s event, and John Kasich’s event at Kennesaw. We wrote our first news story on the Donald Trump event. Upon arrival, we noticed the large amount of minorities in attendance, and this was curious to us, so we decided to write our story on it. We interviewed minority attendees, asking questions about their political affiliation, the level of support for Trump, and their feelings on his attitude toward minorities. The feedback was shockingly positive, with some stating their support for Trump’s harsh stance on immigration because of the difficult process they went through in order to get here. This event was simultaneously eye-opening and bewildering, as I gained some understanding as to how a minority voter could support Trump, but in many ways, hearing these statements just added to the confusion. Ultimately, I decided that I will probably never truly understand, but that the thought process is complex, and at the least, this point of view is worth listening to. Overall, this was a fantastic experience. I got a look into the journalist world by conducting interviews and watching the process of creating a story from interviews and firsthand experiences, which expanded my opinion of journalists.

We wrote our second news story about Hillary Clinton’s event at Atlanta City Hall. This event was vastly different from the Trump rally. Not only was the venue much smaller and less accessible, but it was also not at all the circus that the Trump rally was. There was no chanting and surrounding protestors before they were dragged out by security, and there was actual discussion of policy and goals. We focused on interviews with attendees, who were largely supportive of Clinton. As with the other news story, much of my experience was observation of the journalistic process. I took from these experiences everything I could and wrote about them, and the journalism students took all of our work and put it all together in order to form a cohesive story. I think the most interesting part of this second news story was watching the journalism students take personal experiences and the second-hand experiences of others, and create a story that is thoughtful and enjoyable to read.

For the field research project, we were instructed to choose a specific research question to be answered based on one event relevant to the 2016 election. We chose to explore the Clinton event more deeply. More specifically, we sought to explore the ways the Clinton campaign works to attract minority voters, as she has a relatively large minority following. We used three research methodologies: systematic observation, semi-structured interviews, and visual document/rhetorical analysis. The systematic observation consisted of taking in the event as a whole and documenting any noticeable patterns or themes. The interviews were fairly standard, consisting of general questions about political affiliation, level of support, and feelings on policies. The rhetorical analysis required taking a deeper look at underlying messaging in Clinton’s signs, words, and even her last-minute change in venue. Our research concluded that Clinton’s efforts to obtain minority support are present on every level, and that this includes all types of minorities, not just racial. She is a master of the emotional appeal, which is and effective tool in general, but specifically with minority voters it seems, as there seems to be a common feeling of being misunderstood or under-represented among minority communities. Clinton’s ability to appeal to emotions and instill the idea that she cares deeply is key. She also uses many buzz words which are specifically attractive to minorities. One very useful buzz word Clinton uses is “equality.” This word is particularly motivating to groups who feel as if they are not treated equally. These efforts have been successful among not only racial minorities, but also among women who identify with the feeling of inequality and under-representation. This project was particularly interesting to me, as I find it fascinating how covert this programming can be, and how campaign teams work on a psychological level to gain support. On one hand, their ability to appeal to people on such a deep level, in some ways without people even realizing it, is somewhat unsettling. However, on the other hand, this phenomenon is just too fascinating to condemn. Another aspect that made this project so enjoyable was getting to hear the perspectives and interpretations of my group, and collaborating to create a research paper which reflects all of our views.

The third news story was about the state of the race after Super Tuesday. We were to use our own analysis, as well as the opinion of a political professional in order to discuss the impact of Super Tuesday on the race. We interviewed Kennesaw’s Dr. Timothy Kersey, a professor I chose because of his unique, thoughtful, and well-articulated opinions. We went into the interview with a list of questions, and came out with much more than we anticipated. We discussed each of the candidates’ chances of nomination, and their chances of winning the general election. We then got into a fairly long conversation about Trump’s success so far and his chances of winning, as well as the prospect of a contested Republican convention. One part of the interview that I found particularly interesting was Dr. Kersey’s perspective on Trump. He described Trump as a “larger than life” figure, and in addition to discussing why this approach has been successful among the American people, he explained why this approach has an expiration date. To summarize his explanation, this is a charade that gets people excited and draws them in, but is nearly impossible to keep up for the long haul. When there is little actual policy and expertise, people start to see through the charade, and the novelty of it wears off, just as is the case with any fad. Basically, Trump wins the 500 meter dash, but he runs out before he finishes the marathon. This was by far my favorite project, partially because I got to interview one of my favorite professors, but also because it required me to pause and assess the race, allowing me to see aspects which I had not before seen.

The last project we did was a content analysis which consisted of collecting 25 stories from two different news outlets (50 total), and determining which framing methods they used in each story. We used an Excel sheet and created a chart to display the results. Our findings were unsurprising, yet still disappointing. Our research showed that these news outlets focus fairly heavily on conflict and candidate attributes, while discussion of issues was hardly existent. The implications of this in the field of political communication are disturbing in our opinion. What this means is that the media is exacerbating this phenomenon by which policy stances have taken a backseat to conflicts between candidates and candidates’ personal lives. This election has been particularly heavily focused on virtually anything but the candidates’ policies, which is truly mind-blowing to me, as I do not understand how the American people do not realize that once these people are in office, their policies are essentially all that will matter. This project was somewhat frustrating to my partners and myself, as it confirmed many of our previous assumptions regarding the media’s role in the disappointing situation that exists in America. If nothing else, this project confirmed that the media is a business, and as such, must produce what sells, which unfortunately consists coverage of the candidates in a way which has an uncanny resemblance to coverage of the Kardashians.

I believe that I achieved each of the four expressed learning objectives for this course. The first learning objective is concerned with the ability to produce high quality research projects relating to political communication in American elections. I have had a fair amount of practice with research projects in my major and feel confident in my abilities. However, this class required a somewhat different approach and perspective, and challenged me to expand my skills. The most difficult part of this was gaining a solid understanding of the communications concepts in order to apply them to the projects. Having the journalism students to work with greatly helped with this aspect.

The second objective is to be able to provide critical perspectives on the intersection between political communications and American elections. I was challenged to do this in the longer papers. We were asked to discuss our research or experiences in relation to the field of political communication. This was difficult at first, as there seemed to be many ways that our research and experiences applied to the field, but articulating this in a way that conveyed the significance of the relationships proved to be complicated and challenging. For this I am thankful, because this part of each paper is where I was forced to expand my understandings, and many of the assessments articulated in the papers were thoughts which were developed as I was writing them. This is also the part of the papers where each group member’s unique experiences and perspectives were contributed, allowing us to produce work that I do not believe any of us would have been able to produce on our own.

Concerning the third objective, I feel somewhat less confident. The third objective is to be able to produce high quality journalism on the theme of American elections. This type of writing is still not extremely familiar to me, as this semester was the first time I had ever had any experience with it. However, watching the process of the journalism students and contributing to their work helped me gain an understanding. So, though I by no means consider myself advanced or capable of producing high quality work in a natural fashion as the journalism students are capable of doing, I believe I have developed some skills that would allow me to produce high quality journalism with some practice and guidance.

The fourth objective is to respectfully observe American political communication processes in practice. Achieving this objective requires an understanding of the meaning of political communications as a field. As this was my first encounter with this field, my understanding of the field of political communication is based on American elections. Since I’ve become acquainted with this field, I cannot help but see political communications concepts and methods in everything I see regarding the election. I’ve always noticed methods or tactics that politicians use, but now I am able to identify them, understand them, and to a extent understand what they are trying to achieve through use of these methods and tactics.

I do not believe I can properly explain how much I have enjoyed this class. As a political science student in my last semester, I have heard the same concepts and had the same discussions so many times that I could probably teach a political science class in my sleep. Even as someone who loves my major, I can admit that it can be very repetitive and I had begun to feel as if I could excel with little effort. This class challenged everything I know about political science, expanded my understanding of the field, helped my own opinions evolve, and got me excited about my field again. I can say with confidence that if I was not graduating next month, I would absolutely take more political communications classes.